Aectp 600 2

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.
com
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ALLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TEST PUBLICATION
AECTP 600
THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING

THE ABILITY OF MATERIEL TO MEET
EXTENDED LIFE REQUIREMENTS
AND ROLE AND DEPLOYMENT CHANGES
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
AECTP-600
Edition 2
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-600
(Edition 2)
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
NATO STANDARDISATION AGENCY (NSA)
NATO LETTER OF PROMULGATION
April 2007
1. AECTP-600 (Edition 2) – THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE

ABILITY OF MATERIEL TO MEET EXTENDED LIFE REQUIREMENTS AND ROLE AND
DEPLOYMENT CHANGES is a NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED publication. It shall be
transported, stored and safeguarded in accordance with agreed security regulations for the
handling of NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED documents. The agreement of nations to use this
publication is recorded in STANAG 4370.
2. AECTP-600 (Edition 2) is effective upon receipt. It supersedes AECTP-600

(Edition 1) which shall be destroyed in accordance with the local procedure for the
destruction of documents.
3. AECTP-600 (Edition 2) contains only factual information. Changes to these are not
subject to the ratification procedures; they will be promulgated on receipt from the nations
concerned.
4. It is permissible to reproduce this AECTP in whole or in part provided the same

level of security classification is maintained.
J. MAJ
Major General, POL(A)
Director, NSA
III ORIGINAL
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ALLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TEST PUBLICATION
AECTP 600
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. A process known as the Ten Step Method has been developed for evaluating the ability of materiel
to meet extended life requirements and role and deployment changes. The process is presented in
this AECTP, which is a framework document. The purpose of this document is to acquaint project
(program) managers with the engineering principles involved when evaluating the implications of
extended life requirements, and also with the outline of a management tool that systematically
addresses the issues to be resolved. Additional leaflets are included to provide further guidance for
the engineering practitioner when addressing the detailed technical issues.
2. As a management tool, the Ten Step Method provides:
• a structured economical process to aid conformity and traceability when evaluating

extended life requirements and role and deployment changes
• an explanation of the necessary steps to be undertaken to achieve compliance with
• exit criteria from the process that minimise programme costs and timescales
• a basis for tailoring the process to meet the needs of a particular item of materiel
• a mechanism to expose data voids early within the evaluation
• a code of practice to audit materiel life extension, role and deployment change
programmes
3. From the engineering viewpoint, the process demands a definitive knowledge of the project specific
environmental requirements, for which characteristics and data are available in STANAG 4370
AECTP 200. The process also demands an extensive knowledge of the relevant potential failure
modes for the materiel, which should be well known to the original design authorities. This
knowledge will provide maximum confidence in the results of the evaluation.
4. Historically, other approaches have been used to evaluate the life of materiel. However, these
approaches have serious inherent limitations, particularly with regard to the level of confidence
established for life estimates. One such approach applies the test methods and severities used
originally to qualify the materiel with the test durations suitably modified to cover the extended life
requirements, without regard to the environmental descriptions associated with real life experience
to date or from the failure modes that could arise from changes in anticipated usage.
5. In short, the benefits of adopting the Ten Step Method are:
• uncertainties from materiel life evaluation are minimised because the process requires re-
examination of the original environmental conditions, possible failure modes and the
previous assumptions
• mismatches between the original requirements and real life experience are revealed,
thereby eliminating the need to re-test if over-specified, and showing areas of critical need
for re-analysis or re-test
• additional work is limited to that which this process shows to be necessary by reducing the
large number of possible failure modes to those that affect the life extension criteria and
then further reducing the scope of treatments to the most cost effective combination of
tests and analyses
i
AECTP-600
Edition 2
• the process is responsive to the need to reorganise programme time and cost restraints as
it exposes the choices available
6. If the extension involves a role, deployment or a design change, care needs to be taken to ensure
that all of the appropriate environmental conditions and possible failure modes are considered.
ii
AECTP-600
Edition 2
THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE ABILITY OF MATERIEL

TO MEET EXTENDED LIFE REQUIREMENTS AND ROLE AND DEPLOYMENT CHANGES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................i
1 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Application ...........................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Limitations............................................................................................................................................1
2 RELATED DOCUMENTS..........................................................................................................................1
3 INTRODUCTION TO THE METHOD.........................................................................................................2
4 PROVISIONS AND BENEFITS .................................................................................................................7
5 THE TEN STEPS.......................................................................................................................................8
5.1 Step 1: Research the original Life cycle Environmental Profile ............................................................8
5.2 Step 2: Research life history and prepare LCEP ..................................................................................8
5.3 Step 3: Prepare an LCEP for the extended life ....................................................................................9
5.4 Step 4: Compare LCEPs......................................................................................................................9
5.5 Step 5: Evaluate adverse deltas to determine potentially critical cases................................................9
5.6 Step 6: Determine the probable critical cases that require additional treatment .................................10
5.7 Step 7: Formulate treatment options for each probable critical case ..................................................11
5.8 Step 8: Select options and compile work programme ........................................................................12
5.9 Step 9: Undertake the planned tasks .................................................................................................13
5.10 Step 10: Evaluate results from the tasks and compile statement .....................................................13
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS .....................................................................................................................13
ANNEX A: A DEMONSTRATION OF THE TEN STEP METHOD ............................................................. A-1
ANNEX B: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR TYPICAL LCEP CONDITIONS ........................... B-1
ANNEX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................... C-1
ANNEX D: GUIDANCE FOR THE ENGINEERING PRACTITIONER ........................................................ D-1

Leaflet 601 Reverse engineering..............................................................................................D-3
Leaflet 602 Time compression ............................................................................................... D-15
Leaflet 603 Incremental acquisition ........................................................................................ D-21
Leaflet 604 Physics of failure.................................................................................................. D-29
Leaflet 605 Information requirements for LCEPs (Steps 1 to 3) ............................................. D-43
Leaflet 606 Probabilistic analyses ......................................................................................... D-49
Leaflet 607 Materiel role and deployment changes ................................................................ D-59
iii
AECTP-600
Edition 2
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
iv
AECTP-600
Edition 2
THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE ABILITY OF MATERIEL

TO MEET EXTENDED LIFE REQUIREMENTS
AND ROLE AND DEPLOYMENT CHANGES
1 SCOPE
1.1 Purpose
1.1.1 The purpose of this AECTP is to describe the process known as the Ten Step Method that has
been developed to determine the ability of materiel to meet extended life requirements and role
and deployment changes. The process is presented in this AECTP, which is a framework
document. The purpose of the document is to acquaint project (programme) managers with the
engineering principles involved when evaluating the implications of extended life requirements,
and with the outline of a management tool that systematically addresses the issues to be
resolved.
1.1.2 The following Annex D leaflets are intended to provide additional guidance for the engineering
practitioner when addressing the detailed technical issues.
601 Reverse Engineering

602 Time Compression
603 Incremental Acquisition
604 Physics of Failure
605 Guidance on Information Required for Steps 2 and 3
606 Probabilistic Analysis
607 Role and Deployment Changes
1.2 Application
1.2.1 The process described in this AECTP is applicable to all materiel projects. It is especially
applicable to joint NATO materiel projects and multi-national materiel projects.
1.2.2 The process is comprehensive and ensures that all appropriate environmental conditions,
design modifications, possible failure modes and earlier qualification assumptions have been
considered. Moreover, streamlining and early exit criteria are integrated systematically into the
process to eliminate unnecessary work.
1.3 Limitations
1.3.1 The application of the process is limited to materiel where life is a function of exposure to
environmental stresses.
2 RELATED DOCUMENTS
- STANAG 4370 Environmental Testing

- AECTP 100 Environmental Guidelines
- AECTP 200 Environmental Conditions
- AECTP 300 Climatic Environmental Tests
- AECTP 400 Mechanical Environmental Tests
- AECTP 500 Electrical/Electromagnetic Environmental Tests
- STANAG 2895 Extreme Climatic Conditions and Derived Conditions for Use in
Defining Design/Test Criteria for NATO Forces Materiel
- STANAG 4315 Life Assessment of Munitions
1
AECTP-600
Edition 2
- Mil-Std-810 Test Method Standard for Environmental Engineering

Considerations and Laboratory Tests
- Def Stan 00-35 Environmental Handbook for Defence Materiel
- GAM-EG-13 Essais Généraux en Environnement des Matériels
- CIN-EG01 Guide pour la prise en compte de l’Environment dans un
- Programme d’Armement
- CPM 2001 Customer Product Management 2001
3 INTRODUCTION TO THE METHOD
3.1 A premise of the Ten Step Method in general, and Step 1 in particular, is that the materiel under
consideration was originally developed and qualified to a recognisable form of environmental
engineering control and management process such as that presented in STANAG 4370 and its
AECTPs or in equivalent national or commercial standards. The environmental processes
defined in these standards have been available only in recent years and consequently applied
to a limited number of materiel development programmes. Therefore, most materiel requiring life
extension was qualified to standardised test criteria in earlier issues of national standards, such
as Mil-Std-810 (prior to revision D), Def Stan 07-55 (predecessor to Def Stan 00-35) and
GAM-T-13 (predecessor to GAM-EG-13). However, the Ten Step Method can be applied
retrospectively, provided that the original environmental descriptions together with the
associated design and test criteria are known. A method to deduce the original Life Cycle
Environmental Profile (LCEP) environmental conditions by 'reverse engineering' is given in
Annex D Leaflet 601. If the extension involves a role, deployment or design change, care needs
to be taken to ensure that all appropriate environmental conditions and possible failure modes
are considered (see Steps 4 and 7 and the guidance provided in Annex D Leaflet 607).
3.2 The following paragraphs (3.3 to 3.11) provide a brief introduction to the Ten Step Method. The
full description of the method is presented in Paragraph 5. A demonstration of the Ten Step
Method can be found in Annex A. The inter-relationship between the ten steps is shown in
Figure 1, while the required inputs and the expected outputs for each of the ten steps are shown
in Figure 2.
3.3 The purpose of Step 1 is to research the original LCEP, especially its environmental
descriptions, to establish the baseline for comparative studies with the output from the actual life
history to date (Step 2), and the output from the extended LCEP (Step 3). The relationship
assumed between environmental conditions and environmental descriptions for typical LCEP
conditions is included as Annex B.
3.4 In Step 2, as much data and information as possible are gathered about the in-service history to
date, including how the materiel was used and any failures or problems that have occurred. If
the service history does not meet the conditions as defined in the original LCEP then an
updated LCEP, including its associated environmental descriptions, is prepared for the in-
service history to date.
3.5 The purpose of Step 3 is to prepare an LCEP to cover the extended life and/or role change
requirements. It is a prerequisite for Step 3 that a fully defined LCEP is available for the future
use of the materiel.
3.6 Step 4 is directed at comparing the original planned in-service environmental descriptions with
those actually encountered to date (Step 2), combined with those now needed to meet the
extended life requirements for the materiel (Step 3). The purpose of the comparison is to
quantify the environmental descriptions so that an assessment can be made as to whether the
materiel can withstand the environmental stresses expected during the required extended life.
Where extended life requirements, combined with those actually encountered, produce more
severe environmental descriptions than those to which the materiel was qualified, then the more
severe environmental descriptions are known as ‘adverse deltas’. The results of the comparison
may demonstrate that there are no adverse deltas and therefore the materiel is already qualified
2
AECTP-600
Edition 2
to withstand the environmental stresses expected during the required extended life.
Consequently, the requirements for Exit Criterion 1 are met, Steps 5 through 9 are deleted and
Step 10 is used to document the results (see Figure 1). When the extension involves a design
change to enhance materiel performance, all environmental conditions should initially be
considered as deltas. Engineering judgement is then required to determine whether these
deltas can be eliminated or considered as adverse deltas.
3.7 At Step 5, the Ten Step Method addresses failure modes. The process requires consideration of
the possible failure modes that could occur on exposure to the environmental conditions
identified as adverse deltas. Therefore, the initial task in Step 5 is to list, for each adverse delta,
sets of possible failure modes for sub-assemblies and components. A simplified example of the
outcome of this task is shown as a matrix in Figure 3, where the X elements depict the sets of
relevant possible failure modes for the sub-assemblies and components. Next, for each
identified adverse delta, the sensitivity of the materiel to the sets of relevant possible failure
modes is qualitatively assessed to identify potential critical cases (X* in Figure 3), where the
extended life environmental requirements may not be met without further treatment, or may
even demand design modifications.
3.8 At Step 6, the potential critical cases are quantitatively evaluated for each adverse delta
environmental description and the probable critical cases are identified. The sensitivity of the
materiel to the original life requirement should be available in terms of analysis or test results,
but if not, then it needs to be determined. Similarly, for adverse deltas for which possible failure
modes have not been identified, data from additional analyses or tests may be required to
detect them. If the results of these evaluations indicate that the estimated life of the materiel,
based on the original environmental descriptions, is greater than the estimated life based on the
actual and extended life and/or role change requirements, then no further action is required. In
such cases the requirements for Exit Criterion 2 are met, Steps 7 through 9 are deleted and
Step 10 is used to document the results (see Figure 1).
3.9 Further treatment is necessary where the results from the Step 6 evaluations indicate that the
estimated life of the materiel, based on the original environmental descriptions, is less than the
actual demonstrated in-service life based on actual history, plus the extended life and/or role
change requirements. These probable critical cases are identified as X** in Figure 3. Step 7
indicates how to compile effective treatment options to meet the shortfall for a particular
probable critical case.
3.10 At Step 8, the most cost and programme effective treatment options are selected to address all
the shortfalls arising from all the adverse deltas and associated probable critical cases. It is
intended that these treatments will verify (to an appropriate level of confidence) that the materiel
will meet the extended life requirements and role and deployment changes.
3.11 The additional treatments necessary to provide the evidence for the extended life and/or role
change requirements, such as analyses, testing and assessments are undertaken at Step 9. At
Step 10, the activities to prepare the formal statement on life extension, role and deployment
changes are addressed.
3
AECTP 600
Edition 2
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes.
Figure 1: Inter-Relationship between the Ten Steps
4
AECTP-600
Edition 2
Step Action Input information Output information
1. Research the original Platform(s) used LCEP-1 or synthesised

LCEP (LCEP-1) Mission profiles original LCEP
Environmental design/test criteria containing
Analysis/test reports environmental
descriptions
2. Research subsequent life Actual scenarios Materiel LCEP (LCEP-2)
history, testing, Surveillance testing to date, design changes
modifications, upgrades Design modifications and weaknesses
Re-testing
3. Prepare ‘extended life’ ‘Extended life’ requirement(s) ‘Extended life’ and/or
and/or role change LCEP Geographical location(s) role change LCEP-3
(LCEP-3) Platform(s) used and any role or
deployment changes
4. Compare original LCEP-1 Step 1, Step 2 and Step 3 outputs Statement of the
environmental descriptions differences in
with those for life history to environmental
date (LCEP-2) plus those descriptions (deltas). Is
for extended life and/or Exit Criterion 1 met?
role change (LCEP-3)
5. Evaluate LCEP differences Knowledge of failure modes Potentially critical cases
to determine potentially and of materiel properties for the for evaluation
critical cases for each materiel, also for any design
‘adverse delta’ modifications
6. Evaluate the potential Compliance statements and hazard Probable critical cases
critical cases and analyses, and associated analysis requiring additional
determine which are the and test reports treatment. Is Exit
probable critical cases that Criterion 2 met?
require treatment
7. Formulate treatment Analysis techniques and testing Sets of treatment
options for each probable options options for each
critical case probable critical case
8. Select cost effective Cost and programme constraints Work programme and
treatment and compile resources required
work programme
9. Undertake the planned Work programme and resources Life assessment
tasks information
10. Evaluate results and Results of the work programme Statement on life
compile life extension extension and/or role
statement change
Figure 2: Inputs and Outputs for Each of the Ten Steps
5
AECTP-600
Edition 2
Materiel: For example, air carried guided missile
Adverse Delta: For example, vibration amplitudes and durations resulting from aircraft buffet manoeuvres
Set of Relevant materiel sub-assemblies and components

possible
failure
Structural Electronic Mechanical Energetic Etc
modes
Soldered
Joints Materials Etc Boards Etc Seals Optics Etc
joints
Structural
(ultimate) X X X
failure
Structural
X** X X X X
fatigue
Fretting
X X* X X X*
fatigue
Loosening of
X*
fasteners
Wire chaffing X*
Intermittent
electrical X X*
contacts
Touching &
shorting of
X
electrical
parts
Seal
X
deformation
Optical
X
misalignment
Etc
Key: X indicates a possible condition exists (see Paragraph 5.5.1)

X* indicates a potentially critical case (see Paragraph 5.5.6)
X** indicates a probable critical case (see Paragraph 5.6.2)
Note: A separate matrix is required to evaluate each adverse delta.
Figure 3: Example Matrix of Relevant Possible Failure Modes versus Materiel Items for
Each Adverse Delta Environmental Description
6
AECTP-600
Edition 2
4 PROVISIONS AND BENEFITS
4.1 As a management tool, the Ten Step Method provides:
• a structured economical process to aid conformity and traceability when evaluating

• an explanation of the necessary steps to be undertaken to achieve compliance with the
• exit criteria from the process that minimise programme costs and timescales
• a basis for tailoring the process to meet the needs of a particular item of materiel
• a mechanism to expose data voids early within the evaluation
• a code of practice to audit completed materiel life extension, role and deployment
change programmes
4.2 From the engineering viewpoint, the Ten Step Method demands a definitive knowledge of the
project specific environmental requirements, for which characteristics and data are available in
STANAG 4370 AECTP 200. To provide maximum confidence in the results of the evaluation,
the process requires an extensive knowledge of the relevant potential failure modes for the
materiel. Moreover, it is only possible to have confidence in the results of the evaluation if staff
with the appropriate knowledge and training are involved in the process.
4.3 Historically, other approaches have been used to evaluate the life extension of materiel.
However, these approaches have serious inherent limitations, particularly with regard to the
level of confidence established for life estimates. One approach applies the original test
methods and severities used to qualify the materiel, with only the test durations modified to
cover the extended life requirements. This approach does not consider the environmental
descriptions associated with real life experience to date or of the failure modes that could arise
from changes in anticipated usage.
4.4 In short, the benefits of adopting the Ten Step Method are:
• uncertainties from the life extension evaluation are minimised because the process
requires re-examination of the original environmental descriptions, potential failure
modes and the previous assumptions.
• mismatches between the original requirements and in-service experience are revealed,
identifying only areas of critical need for re-analysis or re-test.
• additional work is limited by reducing the large number of possible failure modes to
those that affect the life extension criteria. The scope of treatments is then further
reduced to the most cost effective combination of tests and analyses.
• early exit criteria allow a conclusion to be reached based upon a minimum number of
steps eliminating the need to complete the remaining ten steps. These criteria take into
account cost and risks.
• the process is responsive to the need to reorganise the programme time and cost
restraints as it exposes the choices available.
7
AECTP-600
Edition 2
5 THE TEN STEPS
5.1 Step 1: Research the original Life Cycle Environmental Profile
5.1.1 Obtain the Manufacture to Target or Disposal Sequence (MTDS) and associated environmental
descriptions which are often contained in an Environmental Requirement document. For the
purpose of this AECTP it is assumed that the MTDS and environmental descriptions are
contained in one document called the Life Cycle Environmental Profile (LCEP). Therefore, an
LCEP is expected to consist of logistic and operational scenarios together with their associated
environmental descriptions, which should include:
• Handling, transportation and storage

• Deployment platform (ie: truck, aeroplane, ship etc)
• Mission profile/service use profile
• Disposal
5.1.2 The original LCEP forms the baseline document for the Ten Step Method for evaluating the
ability of materiel to meet extended life requirements. If the LCEP information is not available,
then environmental descriptions will need to be synthesised from the following project specific
documentation:
• Environmental Design Criteria

• Environmental Test Specification
• Analysis and Evaluation Reports
• Test and Assessment Reports
A method to deduce the original LCEP environmental conditions by 'reverse engineering' is

given in Leaflet 601 of Annex D.
5.2 Step 2: Research life history and prepare LCEP
5.2.1 Obtain information concerning any modifications to the materiel or changes to its original
intended usage. Investigate any additional testing performed subsequent to placing the materiel
in service. This information should include the following:
• A profile of the in-service life in terms of batch/lot, design standard, age and deployment
• Results from materiel integrity and safety analyses and assessments
• Results from surveillance inspections and testing
• Recalls to fix problems, the causes of such problems, and the results of any related
analyses and tests
• Design upgrades, the issues that prompted them, and the results of any related
analyses and tests
• Manufacturing process changes
5.2.2 Care needs to be taken when gathering this information since the materiel in the inventory may
represent several production runs produced over several years by different suppliers. The
inventory may consist of pieces of materiel which are the same as originally built, or retrofitted,
eg: line replacement items, or a mixture of original materiel and improved materiel.
5.2.3 For ease of comparison in Step 4 below, an updated LCEP, including its associated
environmental descriptions should be prepared for the in-service history to date.
8
AECTP-600
Edition 2
5.3 Step 3: Prepare an LCEP for the extended life requirement
5.3.1 Prepare an LCEP covering the extended life and/or role change requirements based on current
knowledge and understanding of in-service usage. It can be expected that, since the materiel
was designed, the deployment platforms will have changed as well as the geographical
locations for deployment, and perhaps the performance expected from the materiel. Each of
these will affect, and may increase, the environmental stress levels.
5.3.2 As part of the content of the extended life LCEP, compile a set of environmental descriptions
that represent the conditions expected during in-service usage for the required extended
lifetime. If the extension involves a role or deployment change, or a design change, care needs
to be taken to ensure that all of the appropriate environmental conditions and possible failure
modes are considered (see the guidance provided in Leaflet 607 of Annex D).
5.3.3 Where improved data is now available, it is possible that the environmental descriptions for a
particular in-service LCEP are at variance with those stated in the original LCEP, even though
the requirement for those LCEP conditions remains unchanged. In such cases, the improved
data in the LCEP for the extended life should be included and the consequences in Step 4
evaluated.
5.4 Step 4: Compare LCEPs
5.4.1 For each environmental description in the original and extended life LCEP documents, compare
the original severities (Step 1) with those for the extended life requirements (Step 3) combined
with those for the actual life history completed to date (Step 2). Care should be taken to present
the differences, colloquially known as ‘deltas’, in a common format for ease and accuracy of
comparison with related environmental descriptions. Refer to Annex D Leaflets 601 and 602 for
guidance when performing this step. Check whether the original environmental descriptions and
failure modes and associated acceptance criteria remain valid. When the extension involves a
design change to enhance materiel performance, all environmental conditions should be initially
considered as adverse deltas. Engineering judgement is then required to determine whether or
not they can be eliminated.
5.4.2 As stated in Step 1, if the original levels were not based on an LCEP, but rather on standardised
tests, then an equivalent original LCEP will need to be developed comprising synthesised
environmental descriptions as necessary.
5.4.3 Recommended practices should be followed where time compression, or perhaps

decompression, techniques are needed to aid comparison of levels. Refer to Annex C for a
bibliography of life evaluation and test time compression documents (see Annex D Leaflet 602).
Record when these techniques are used for such comparisons.
5.4.4 It may be possible to demonstrate that the original LCEP generated design and test severities
represent cumulative stresses which are greater than expected during the lifetime completed to
date, plus those expected during the extended life. Where this is so, and where no design
modifications are proposed, a case can be made for recommending the required extended
usage without further detailed investigation, analysis or testing. Should this demonstration be
successful, no additional work is necessary and the requirements for Exit Criterion 1 are met,
Steps 5 through 9 are deleted, and Step 10 is used to document the results (see Figure 1).
5.5 Step 5: Evaluate adverse deltas to determine potentially critical cases
5.5.1 In this step the failure modes of the materiel and of any proposed design modifications are
addressed. The process requires the consideration of potential failure modes that could occur
on exposure to the adverse delta environmental stresses. Therefore the initial task in this step is
to list sets of possible failure modes of subassemblies and components for each adverse delta.
9
AECTP-600
Edition 2
5.5.2 This initial task is achieved by setting up a matrix for each identified adverse delta as shown in
Figure 3. The rows in the matrix comprise sets of possible failure modes for the materiel and the
columns represent the relevant materiel sub-assemblies and components considered to be
sensitive to the adverse delta. Relevant possible failure modes for a specific sub-assembly or
component are shown as X elements in Figure 3. A demonstration of the use of the matrix in the
Ten Step process is shown in Annex A.
5.5.3 It is intended that the list of possible failure modes includes those which are unique to the
materials and processes used in the manufacture of the materiel as well as those which
experience has shown will be produced by generic environmental stresses. A bibliography is
provided in Annex C to assist with the identification and processing of failure modes.
5.5.4 Extend the list of possible failure modes, as appropriate, to include situations where the original
data, evaluations or assumptions, are now considered to be suspect.
5.5.5 Mission criticality tends to fall into the following three categories:
• System performance
• System safety
• Structural integrity
Matrices should be produced as necessary to accommodate all three categories. Determining

criticality is based on answering the specific question under consideration, eg: will the materiel
be safe to use for the required extended period, or will the materiel perform as required for the
same extended period? These are separate questions and each needs to be addressed using
separate criteria.
5.5.6 For each adverse environmental condition, the size of the matrix of possible failure modes
versus materiel sub-assemblies and components should be reduced as much as possible. This
may be achieved by conducting a review to ascertain whether each listed possible failure mode
will generate a potentially critical case. A potentially critical case (depicted as an X* element in
Figure 3) is defined as a case which affects mission requirements. The review will be qualitative
and subjective at this stage and based mainly on experience. This experience should include
knowledge of the physics of failure for the materials from which the materiel is made, and
previous knowledge of this or similar materiel.
5.5.7 Further consideration only needs to be given to the matrix elements representing failure modes
that could generate potentially critical cases. The nature of the potentially critical cases should
be recorded. (An example of a reduced matrix in tabular form and recorded potentially critical
cases is given in Annex A Figure A1 Columns 4 and 5.)
5.5.8 It is emphasised that the overall confidence in the results of the total life estimation task is
directly related to the diligence employed when completing Step 5.
5.6 Step 6: Determine the probable critical cases that require additional treatment
5.6.1 The purpose of this step is to evaluate quantitatively the criticality of each identified potentially
critical case so that an informed decision can be made as to whether additional treatment is
required, or whether the original (or current) qualification is acceptable. The combination of
assessments, analyses and/or testing is commonly referred to as ‘treatment’ in this document.
Prior to making this decision, all relevant data sources available should be reviewed. With
regard to the three mission categories referred to in Step 5, these sources could include:
• Materiel performance specifications to ascertain mission critical and minimum

performance requirements
10
AECTP-600
Edition 2
• Project hazard analyses to ascertain the consequences of failure(s) resulting in a

potentially unsafe condition
• Project compliance matrices which, for structural integrity requirements, would include
references to relevant structural strength summaries, structural assessment reports,
stress analyses and strength test reports
5.6.2 An assessment should be made as to which of the potentially critical cases need to be
considered further. Those to be considered further are termed ‘probable critical cases’ (depicted
as an X** element in Figure 3).
5.6.3 The probable critical cases that require additional treatment and the reasons for the additional
treatment should be recorded.
5.6.4 A demonstration of how the critical cases can be processed through Step 6, from potential to
probable, is given in Annex A Figure A2.
5.6.5 Should the results of the evaluation indicate that none of the potentially critical cases arising
from the extended life and/or the role change requirements need additional treatment, and the
original (or current) qualification is acceptable, no additional work is necessary and the
requirements for Exit Criterion 2 are met, Steps 7 through 9 are deleted, and Step 10 is used to
document the results (see Figure 1).
5.7 Step 7: Formulate treatment options for each probable critical case
5.7.1 At this point:
• all LCEP environmental conditions have been reduced to only the adverse deltas
(Step 4);
• the matrices for each adverse delta listing possible failure modes of the original materiel
and any design modifications have been reduced to only the potential critical cases
(Step 5); and
• all associated project specific data have been evaluated to determine probable critical
cases that require additional treatment to meet the extended life requirements (Step 6).
The purpose of Step 7 is to formulate treatment options for each remaining probable critical
case. The treatment options could include the following:
• Sophisticated analysis/modelling and/or evaluation without testing, eg: finite element

analysis with supporting technical documentation
• Analysis supported by characterisation testing, eg: modal analysis testing
• Tailored sequential environmental testing (natural or laboratory) supported by technical
validation
• Minimum integrity environmental testing supported by an evaluation report to justify the
validity of the testing
• Additional surveillance
5.7.2 If it is considered, based on the assessments in Steps 5 and 6, that an adverse delta is so
severe that the materiel cannot possibly meet the extended life requirement, or that a
sophisticated treatment is not cost effective, then it may be feasible to modify the planned
usage of the materiel to alleviate the environmental condition such that the adverse delta is
reduced or eliminated. Alternatively, stress mitigation measures or design changes can be
incorporated, followed by re-qualification of the materiel as appropriate. Such recommendations
should be documented in Step 10.
11
AECTP-600
Edition 2
5.7.3 Options involving analysis methods will need to consider the full range of techniques currently
available in order to achieve the most effective solution.
5.7.4 Options involving testing will need to consider whether to test at system, sub-assembly or
coupon level in order to achieve the most effective solution. STANAG 4370 AECTP 200
provides guidance on the selection of environmental tests, while in AECTPs 300, 400 and 500 a
full range of both tailored and minimum integrity test methods is defined.
5.7.5 Where a relatively high level of confidence is required, consideration should be given to the
merits of adopting the ‘multi-legged’ assessment approach (see Annex C Section 1 References
2 and 29). This approach is defined as a combination of analysis, modelling, testing and
assessment methodologies to provide the case for materiel qualification at the required
confidence level. The degree to which each methodology is used will be based on a trade-off
between time, cost and required confidence.
5.7.6 A short list of the preferred treatment options for each probable critical case should be recorded
together with a justification for the option chosen.
5.8 Step 8: Select options and compile work programme
5.8.1 In this step the treatment options derived in Step 7 for each probable critical case are reviewed,
and the most effective approach to accommodate all the treatments in an appropriate sequence
is evaluated. It may be possible to address some of the effects of environmental conditions by
modelling, eg: certain structural dynamic loadings, but others will require testing, eg: solar
radiation. If the treatment options derived in Step 7 are heavily analysis orientated, review the
possibility of deleting most or all testing tasks. If the treatment options are orientated towards
testing, review the need for pre-stressing, ie: additional tests may need to be added into the
sequence to generate wear, particularly if the test specimen is relatively unused.
5.8.2 Options involving environmental testing should invoke only accepted environmental test
engineering practices, using the guidance provided in the AECTPs covered by STANAG 4370.
The following activities need to be addressed when considering testing solutions:
• Determine which environmental stresses can be combined. Advice is given in AECTP

200 Category 240 Leaflet 2410
• Determine the minimum acceptable sample size
• Determine the build standard of the test specimens to be extracted from service use,
paying careful attention to the age and previous usage of the materiel
• Tailor test severities using, if necessary, accepted credible time compression
techniques; the bibliography presented in Annex C of this document could be used as a
guide
• Define fixturing and facility requirements
• Define test configurations
5.8.3 If the results from these additional treatments are likely to be phased with time, then the ‘multi-
legged’ approach referred to in Step 7 may be essential to provide the necessary progressive
build up of confidence.
5.8.4 A work programme to implement the selected treatments should be compiled. This should
include a justification of the approach used and the severities of any test.
12
AECTP-600
Edition 2
5.9 Step 9: Undertake the planned tasks
5.9.1 The purpose of this step is to undertake the planned tasks associated with the selected
treatments. The resulting evidence provides the necessary information to determine whether the
extended life and/or role change requirements can be met.
5.9.2 The results of the selected treatments should be reported, making sure that the necessary
information is available for the Step 10 evaluation.
5.10 Step 10: Evaluate results from the tasks and compile statement
5.10.1 Using the results obtained from Step 9 evaluate the materiel against the extended life
requirements and role and deployment changes. This evaluation is likely to include the following
activities:
• Assess the ability of the materiel to meet the extended life requirements and/or role and
deployment changes, preferably expressed in terms of confidence levels and supported
by a risk assessment where appropriate
• Compile requirements for any associated in-service surveillance activities
• Compile recommendations, where relevant, for stress mitigation measures which could
include platform limitations and/or restrictions on environmental conditions
• Recommend product improvements, where relevant, to eliminate the need for stress
mitigation measures and to meet the requirements in full
5.10.2 Prepare a written statement (report) for approval by the appropriate authority, providing specific
information of the changes to the approved life of the materiel and stating all limitations on, or
modifications to, the in-service usage.
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
6.1 This AECTP presents a structured and economical process on which service life extension
programmes, and/or role and deployment change programmes can be based. The methodical
re-examination of the original LCEP environmental descriptions, potential failure modes, and
previous assumptions in relation to extended life requirements minimise the uncertainties
present in life extension work. The entire process needs to be thoroughly documented but the
accuracy and success of this process relies on the engineers involved having programme,
environmental analysis, testing and assessment experience.
13
AECTP-600
Edition 2
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
14
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
ANNEX A
A DEMONSTRATION OF THE TEN STEP METHOD
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this annex is to provide a demonstration of the Ten Step Method. This
demonstration provides one example of a methodology for dealing with the complex process of
reducing the large number of possible failure modes down to the minimum number required to
meet the life extension criteria. The demonstration is based on a question of current interest to
many program managers; ‘is it possible to extend the life of the materiel from its current planned
life to the required extended life?’
1.2 For this demonstration an air carried guided weapon has been chosen. As discussed in the
main document, when considering the life extension for such materiel, there are many
environmental issues that can be studied. In this demonstration the life extension requirements
are limited to extending the number of flight carriage hours. It is also understood that mission
criticality falls into several categories (see Paragraph 5.5.5 in the main document), however this
demonstration is further limited to the mission criticality category ‘structural integrity’ only. Safety
and performance categories can be covered in a similar manner.
1.3 To simplify the demonstration, the content of this annex is limited to providing additional
guidance on the relatively complicated activity of the determination of the probable critical cases
and the derivation of their additional treatments, ie: Steps 5, 6 and 7. The demonstration makes
simplifying assumptions regarding Steps 1 through 4 and Steps 8 through 10. In actual tasks,
other requirements are often addressed concurrently, such as the incorporation of materiel role
and deployment changes which need to be addressed in a similar manner (see Annex D
Leaflet 607).
1.4 For this demonstration, the steps of the Ten Step Method have been divided into four groups:
• Adverse deltas (Steps 1-4)

• Critical cases (Steps 5-6)
• Treatments (Steps 7-8)
• Compliance (Steps 9-10)
2 ADVERSE DELTAS
2.1 The aim of Steps 1 to 4, as described in Paragraphs 5.1 through 5.4 of the main document, is to
identify and quantify the adverse delta environmental descriptions associated with air carried
guided weapon extended life requirements. Adverse deltas are defined as any changes in
environmental descriptions resulting from the LCEP which extend either the duration or
amplitude of the environmental descriptions, or both. A description of the relationship between
environmental conditions and environmental descriptions for typical LCEP conditions is included
in Annex B.
2.2 It is assumed for this demonstration that Steps 1 to 4 have been completed in accordance with
the guidance given in the main document, and that many environmental conditions with
increased severity (adverse deltas) have been identified. These adverse deltas may include
environmental descriptions relating to extended storage duration, increased operational
temperatures, additional handling shocks and increased buffet manoeuvre vibration. However,
this demonstration will only address one adverse delta, ie: that of missile buffet manoeuvre
vibration, and in particular the effect of increased duration arising from the extended life
requirements. For slender air carried missiles this vibration environment arises from
A-1
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
aerodynamic excitation of the missile (or aircraft pylon or wing) during aircraft flight manoeuvre
conditions. The missile responses are often characterised by narrow band random vibration and
emanate from the excitation of the missile in its fundamental bending mode. This vibration
environment can significantly affect the missile’s air carriage fatigue life.
3 CRITICAL CASES
3.1 The aim of Steps 5 and 6, as described in Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 of the main document is to
determine the critical cases and to establish whether additional treatment, in terms of
assessment, analysis and/or testing, is required to demonstrate that the materiel is compliant
with the extended life requirements.
3.2 Evaluate adverse deltas to determine potentially critical cases (Step 5)
3.2.1 The purpose of Step 5 is to determine the possible failure modes that could generate potentially
critical cases for each of the adverse environmental descriptions (deltas) derived in Steps 1
through 4. As the list of adverse deltas could be extensive for an air carried guided weapon, this
task is facilitated by the use of a matrix to evaluate each adverse delta, ie: one matrix for each
adverse delta.
3.2.2 A typical matrix format to cover vibration resulting from aircraft buffet manoeuvres (the only
adverse delta addressed in this demonstration) is shown in Figure 3 of the main document.
Relevant sub-assemblies and components of a typical air carried guided missile are shown
listed in the horizontal axis. The relevant possible failure modes for the missile are shown in the
vertical axis.
3.2.3 The elements of the matrix in Figure 3 in the 'Structure - Joints' column adjacent to the set of
possible failure modes associated with structural failure and fatigue are shown expanded and in
tabular format in Figure A1. Shock and impact failure modes have been added. The table
demonstrates the processing of each possible failure mode, ie: each populated element in the
matrix, within Step 5. Columns 1 and 2 of Figure A1 portray the possible mechanical failure
modes of the missile joint structure. In normal circumstances, possible failure modes for
climatic, chemical, biological and electrical will also need to be addressed.
3.2.4 For this demonstration, only structural integrity is addressed (see Paragraph 1.2). However, in
the general case for air carried guided missiles, the matrix will need to be developed to include
elements covering the following categories of mission criticality:
• System performance: functional and reliability

• System safety
• Structural integrity: especially air worthiness
This development infers three separate matrices. Because only structural integrity is addressed,
the detailed matrix shown in Figure A1 is formulated to address only airworthiness
requirements. Also, to illustrate the flexibility of the Ten Step Method, the matrix content focuses
on analytical approaches, but the solutions would of course default to test treatments during
subsequent steps if cost effective analytical techniques were unavailable.
3.2.5 When initially completed, the matrix will contain more possible failure modes than would be
practical or economical to consider. At this point the possible failure modes for the missile
tubular joint structure, as listed in Column 2 of Figure A1, are reviewed against the captive flight
buffet manoeuvre vibration (the adverse delta) to determine which of the possible failure modes
are relevant to the missile tubular joint under consideration. The list of possible failure modes is
likely to be reduced considerably as a result of this exercise, as indicated in Column 3 of
Figure A1.
A-2
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
3.2.6 The next task is to review each of the relevant possible failure modes in Column 2 to determine
which modes are likely to generate potential critical cases, ie: those that would be potentially
critical to the structural integrity of the materiel. The result of this task is indicated in Column 4
as a Yes/No answer. This is complemented in Column 5 with a short narrative summarising the
nature of the potentially critical case, how the case is covered, or why the case is not an issue.
The review to determine potentially critical cases is subjective at this stage and based mainly on
experience. This experience can be based on knowledge of the physics of failure of the material
from which the materiel is made, or from experience with similar materiel. An affirmative
response in Column 4 of Figure A1 denotes a commitment to carry through this case to Step 6
where its criticality will be quantified.
3.2.7 The overall confidence in the results of the life estimation task will be directly dependent on the
diligence with which the matrix is addressed and completed.
Note: The processing of the large number of elements in the matrix for a complex materiel system
such as an air carried guided missile would be simplified by the adoption of computer software to
automate the identification of possible failure modes, and the subsequent processing to determine
potentially critical cases and subsequently probable critical cases (Steps 5 and 6).
3.3 Determine the probable critical cases that require additional treatment (Step 6)
3.3.1 The purpose of this step is to evaluate each potentially critical case so that an informed decision
can be made as to whether additional treatment is required, or whether the original (or current)
qualification is acceptable. Prior to making this decision, check all relevant data sources
available for this adverse delta. These would include project compliance matrices relating to
structural integrity requirements, which should indicate references to relevant structural strength
summaries and appropriate structural assessment reports, stress analyses and strength test
reports.
3.3.2 Conduct the evaluation necessary to make a decision as to which of the potentially critical
cases require additional analysis and/or test treatments. The evaluation process for each
remaining possible failure mode (ie: each remaining populated element in the Figure 3 matrix) is
demonstrated through the use of the table in Figure A2. Columns 6, 7 and 8 of this table
essentially summarise the results of Step 5. The required evaluation for each remaining
possible failure mode and its associated potential critical case is indicated in Column 9. The
evaluation may involve a theoretical or trials analysis, such as re-visiting stress calculations or
test reports and their associated assessments.
3.3.3 Considering the air carried guided missile example and Figure A2, analytical and/or test
treatments are needed only to cover missile joint structural fatigue modes (see Column 10). The
associated potential critical case is then referred to in Column 11 as a probable critical case.
3.3.4 The reasons for the additional treatment should be formally recorded in an appropriate report,
summarised in Column 11, together with the reasons why no further work is considered
necessary for the eliminated potential critical cases.
3.3.5 Had the evaluation concluded that no further treatment is needed to meet the extended life
requirements, ie: Column 10 of Figure A2 had only negative responses, then the requirements
for Exit Criterion 2 are met, Steps 7 through 9 are deleted, and Step 10 is used to document the
results (see Figure 1 in the main document).
4 TREATMENTS
4.1 The aim of Steps 7 and 8 is to formulate, optimise and programme the treatments required to
service the probable critical cases.
A-3
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
4.2 Formulate treatment options for each probable critical case (Step 7)
4.2.1 The purpose of Step 7 is to formulate treatment options for each remaining probable critical
case which will confirm, or otherwise, that the materiel is capable of meeting the extended life
requirements. The only probable critical case in this air carried guided missile demonstration is
that for missile tubular joint fatigue. The following generalised approach for selecting treatment
options should be considered:
• Analysis/assessment only
• Analysis supported by characterisation (eg: modal or stiffness) testing
• Tailored environmental testing supported by a minor assessment
• Minimum integrity environmental testing supported by a major assessment
4.2.2 Options involving analysis methods will need to consider the full range of techniques currently
available in order to achieve the most cost-effective solution.
4.2.3 Options involving testing will need to consider whether to test at guided missile system level,
sub-assembly level, or lower, to achieve the most effective solution. The selection of
environmental tests is addressed in AECTP 200, while a full range of both tailored and minimum
integrity test methods is defined in AECTP 400.
4.2.4 Where a relatively high level of confidence is required, as in this demonstration, consideration
should be given to the merits of adopting the 'multi-legged' assessment approach. This
approach is defined as a combination of analysis, modelling, testing and assessment
methodologies to provide the case for materiel qualification at the required confidence level.
The degree to which each technique is used will be based on a trade off between time, cost and
the level of confidence required.
4.2.5 Typically, the process for setting up analysis treatment options for this particular probable critical
case is as follows:
(a) Confirm the full details of the adverse delta in terms of the credible worst case, or limit,
combination of concurrent load inputs and environmental conditions, eg: the full details could
comprise:
• A set of missile buffet conditions that include both store rigid and flexible body motions
(the basis of the adverse delta)
• A set of aircraft flight manoeuvres (inducing missile accelerations) acting concurrently
• An associated set of aerodynamic loadings acting concurrently
• Aero elastic effects acting concurrently (where relevant)
(b) Confirm, assisted by the knowledge from (a), the potentially critical areas of the structural
joint when subjected to fatigue loadings, eg: critical areas could arise in:
• Joint materials
• Structural discontinuities (stress raisers)
• Fasteners
(c) With the knowledge of (a) and (b), confirm the set of detailed fatigue failure modes that
could arise within the missile structural joint.
A-4
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
(d) From (a), (b) and (c) identify relevant fatigue analysis techniques that could confirm whether
or not the missile structural joint would meet the extended life requirements. Such
techniques could include:
• Fracture mechanics methods

• Cumulative damage methods
• Use of specialist data sheets
• Use of acknowledged codes of practice
(e) In parallel with (d), define specific acceptance criteria for each fatigue failure mode.
Specialist knowledge of fatigue failure modes and the associated physics of failure are required
to produce satisfactory results from the above sequence.
4.2.6 For the missile structural joint example, the analysis techniques contained in AECTP 200
Leaflet 2410 - Validation of mechanical environmental test methods and severities - may be
helpful when comparing the benefits of relevant treatment options.
4.2.7 Record the list of preferred treatment options for this particular probable critical case.
4.3 Select options and compile work programme (Step 8)
4.3.1 The purpose of Step 8 is to review the treatment options derived in Step 7 for the particular
probable critical case, together with those for all the other probable critical cases. (In this
example the Step 8 review cannot be done because no other probable critical cases were
developed.)
4.3.2 For this air carried guided missile demonstration the remainder of Step 8 would be conducted
using the information given under the Step 8 heading in the main document.
5 COMPLIANCE
5.1 The aim of Steps 9 and 10 is to derive and report the evidence that the air carried guided
missile complies with the extended life requirements.
5.2 Upon completion of Step 8, for this air carried guided missile demonstration, Steps 9 and 10
would be conducted using the information given under the Step 9 and Step 10 headings in the
main document.
A-5
AECTP-600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
A-6
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
POTENTIALLY CRITICAL CASES Materiel: Air carriage guided missile

Adverse delta: Vibration resulting from aircraft buffet manoeuvres
Sub-assembly: Structure - missile tubular joint
1: Sets of possible failure 2: Detailed sets of 3: Is this failure 4: Is this possible failure 5: Record the nature of the potentially
modes possible failure modes mode relevant mode likely to generate critical case
to the joint? a potentially critical case?
Structural (ultimate) failure Tension Yes No Covered by bending
Compression Yes No Covered by bending
Bending Yes Yes Bending stresses of the tube at the joint
Shear Yes Yes Shear of the joint fasteners
Bearing Yes Yes Fasteners in tube material
Buckling (general) No N/A Not applicable
Buckling (local) Yes Yes Tube between fasteners
Structural fatigue Structural member fatigue Yes No Covered by joint fatigue
Panel fatigue No N/A Not applicable
Joint fatigue Yes Yes Fatigue of tube (or fasteners)
Fretting fatigue Fretting fatigue Yes No Covered by joint fatigue
Shock and Impact Brittle fracture No N/A Not applicable
Strain rate effects No N/A Not applicable
Induced impacts Yes Yes Induced displacements
Other Brinelling No N/A Not applicable
Wear No N/A Not applicable
Erosion No N/A Not applicable
Note: A ‘Yes’ in Column 3 = X in Figure 3 of the main document

A ‘Yes‘ in Column 4 = X* in Figure 3 of the main document
Figure A1: Determine Potentially Critical Cases for Each Adverse Delta (Step 5)
A-7
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX A
PROBABLE CRITICAL CASES Materiel: Air carriage guided missile

Adverse delta: Vibration resulting from aircraft buffet manoeuvres
Sub-assembly: Structure - missile tubular joint
6: Sets of possible 7:Remaining 8: Potentially 9: Evaluation to be undertaken on 10: Are additional 11: Additional treatment required for
failure modes possible failure critical cases original calculations and test treatments needed the probable critical cases
modes results to meet extended
life requirements?
Structural (ultimate) Bending Bending stresses of Check adverse delta descriptions No None
failure the tube at the joint with original stress calculations (and
original static strength test results if
conducted)
Shear Shear of the joint Ditto No None

fasteners
Bearing Fasteners in tube Ditto No None

material
Buckling (local) Tube between Ditto No None

fasteners
Structural fatigue Joint fatigue Fatigue of tube or Check adverse delta descriptions Yes More calculations and/or tests
fastener with original fatigue calculations and necessary, in conjunction with
vibration test results aircraft flight manoeuvre loads
(See Step 7)
Shock and impact Induced impacts Installed equipment Check adverse delta descriptions No None
with joint with results for original vibration test
Note: A ‘Yes’ in Column 10 = X** in Figure 3 of the main document
Figure A2: Determine the Probable Critical Cases (Step 6)
A-8
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX B
ANNEX B
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS

FOR TYPICAL LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE (LCEP) CONDITIONS
LCEP PHASES
CONDITION/ HANDLING AND STORAGE DEPLOYMENT PLATFORM SERVICE USE OR DISPOSAL

DESCRIPTION
Typical LCEP condition Logistical handling conditions, Air carriage conditions, Missile flight,
(Level 1) eg: potential drop heights, fork lift truck eg: number of manoeuvres eg: powered flight phase, etc
motions, etc associated with each specific
manoeuvre type, etc
Typical associated Drop shocks Buffet manoeuvre vibrations Powered flight vibration
environmental condition Vehicle vibrations Manoeuvre accelerations Missile accelerations
(Level 2) Natural temperatures Aerodynamic loadings Induced temperatures
Natural humidities, etc Aeroelastic effects, etc Pressure changes, etc
Typical associated Shock formats and durations Vibration formats & durations Vibration formats and durations
environmental description eg: SRS + number of shocks, eg: PSDs + durations, eg: PSDs + durations, acceleration
(Level 3) acceleration histories + number of acceleration histories, load histories, temperature profiles, etc
shocks, etc distributions, etc
Notes: (1) Changes in environmental descriptions resulting from LCEP changes that extend either the duration or amplitude of the environmental description, or
both, are termed ‘adverse deltas’ in this AECTP
(2) This table is intended only to demonstrate the relationship. It is not a comprehensive list of LCEP conditions
B-1
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX B
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
B-2
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX C
ANNEX C
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SECTION 1: DOCUMENTS PRIMARILY ADDRESSING LIFE EVALUATION AND

TEST TIME COMPRESSION
1. Aldridge, D.S., A Strategy to Integrate the 'Tailoring' and 'Simulation' Test Philosophies, IES
Proceedings, 1997
2. Assessing the Effects of Service Environments on Munitions, UK Ordnance Board Proceeding,

P129, January 2000
3. Carlsson, B., Towards a Methodology for Accelerated Life Testing of Solar Energy Materials - A
Case Study of Some Selective Solar Absorber Coatings, IES Proceedings, 1990
4. Caruso, H., Hidden Assumptions in Temperature and Vibration Test Time Compression Models
Used for Durability Testing, IES Proceedings, 1994
5. Caruso, H., A Check List for Developing Accelerated Reliability Tests, Journal of the Institute of
Environmental Sciences, January/February 1997
6. Caruso, H., The Facts of Life About Accelerated Testing (Taking a Look at G's and Degrees),
Test Engineering and Management, December/January 1997/98
7. Caruso, H. and Dasgupta, A., A Fundamental Overview of Accelerated Testing Analytical

Models, Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, January/February
1998
8. Caruso, H.J., Environmental Aspects of Accelerated Life Testing, Class Notes, Institute of
Environmental Sciences and Technology Tutorial, 1998
9. Caruso, H.J., Products Don’t Have a Life (Taking a Look at Gs and Degrees), Test Engineering
and Management, August/September 1999
10. Chick, S. and Mendel, M.B., Deriving Accelerated Life time Models from Engineering Curves with
an Application to Tribology, IES Proceedings, 1994
11. Cluff, K.D. and Barker, D.B., Tailoring Temperature/Humidity Life Tests With In-Service
Environment Data, Proceedings of the lEST, 1998
12. De Winne, J, Equivalence of Fatigue Damage Caused by Vibrations,

IES Proceedings, 1986
13. ElInre, P.M. and Woodworth J., A Maturity Metric for Accelerated testing of Complex Subsystems
and Assemblies, Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences, January/February 1996
14. Feinberg, A.A., Gibson, G.J., White, J.V. and Briggs, R.E., A Corrosion Simulation Environment
for Maintenance of Aging Aircraft, IES Proceedings, 1994
15. Gatscher, J.A. and Kawiecki, G., Comparison of Mechanical Impedance Methods for Vibration
Simulation, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Paper Number AIAA-95-1341-CP
C-1
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX C
16. Gottlieb, R.P., Time Acceleration in Climate Simulations, IES Proceedings, 1990
17. Henderson, G.R. and Piersol, A.G., Fatigue Damage Related Descriptor for Random Vibration
Test Environments, Sound and Vibration, October 1995
18. Holcomb, C. and Lessman, K.M., Application of Modeling and Simulation to a Weapon System
Sustainment Program, ITEA Modeling and Simulation Conference Proceedings
19. Hu, J.M., Life Prediction and Acceleration Based on Power Spectral Density of Random
Vibration, IES Proceedings, 1994
20. Hu, J.M. and Salisbury, K., Temperature Spectrums of Automotive Environment for Fatigue
Reliability Analysis, IES Proceedings, 1994
21. Hu, J.M., Correlation of a Sinusoidal Sweep Test to Field Random Vibration, Journal of the
Institute of Environmental Sciences, November/December 1997
22. Hurd, A., Combining Accelerated Laboratory Durability with Squeak and Rattle Evaluation, SAE
International Paper Number 911051
23. Lall, P., Pecht, M. and Barker, D., Development of an Alternative Wire Bond Test Technique, IES
Proceedings, 1994
24. Lambert, R.G., Accelerated Test Rationale for Fracture Mechanics Effects,
25. Lambert, R.G., Accelerated Test (Time-Compressed) Methodologies for Elastomeric Isolators
Under Random Vibration, IES Proceedings, 1994
26. Lambert, R.G., Analytical Aspects of Accelerated Life Testing, Class Notes, Institute of
Environmental Sciences and Technology Tutorial, 1998
27. Leak, C.E., Epilogue to MERIT: Lessons Learned in Developing an Interactive Environmental
Database, IES Journal July/August 1999
28. Minor, E.O., Deppe, R.W. and Stolt, S.S., Initial Environmental Stress/Life Testing of
Boeing 777 Avionics, IES Proceedings, 1994
29. Moss, R., Gasper, B.C., and Neale, M.P., The Assessment of the Response of Munitions to the
Mechanical Environment, PARARI Safety Symposium, 1997
30. Richards, D.P. and Neale, M.P., The Effects of Phase Relationship in Helicopter Vibrations, IES
Proceedings, 1994
31. Schubert, H., Schmitt, D. and Ziegahn, K-F., Accelerated Tests for Environmental Simulation -
Benefits and Risks, IES Proceedings, 1993
32. Schutt, J.A., Accelerated Life/Reliability Testing of Electronic Interconnects, Materials and
Processes, IES Proceedings, 1994
33. Socie, D. and Downing, S., Statistical Strain-Life Fatigue Analysis, SAE International Paper
Number 960566
34. Stadterman, T.J., Connon, W. and Barker, D., Accelerated Vibration Life Testing of Electronic
Assemblies, Proceedings of the IES, 1997
C-2
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX C
35. Sun, F-B., Kececioglu, D.B., and Yang, J., Fatigue Ageing Acceleration Under Random Vibration
Stressing, Proceedings of the lEST, 1998
36. Sun, F-B and Yang, J., HDD Accelerated Life Test Modeling and Software Development,
Proceedings of the lEST, 1999
37. Svensson, T. and Torstensson, H.O., Utilization of Fatigue Damage Response Spectrum in the
Evaluation of Transport Stresses, IES Proceedings, 1993
38. Sweitzer, K.A., A Mechanical Impedance Correction Technique for Vibration Tests, IES
Proceedings, 1987
39. Varoto, P.S. and McConnell, K.G., READI - A Vibration testing Model for the 21st Century, Sound
and Vibration, October 1996
40. Yowell, L. and Connon, W.H., Efficient Testing Using Previously Acquired Data,
41. Zhao, K. and Somayajuia, G., Accelerated Product Development Using Dynamic Simulation and
RPC Test, SAE International Paper Number 961841
42. Ziegahn, K-F, Furrer, E. and Braunmiller, U., How to Determine Transportation Loads - New
German DIN Standards for the Measurement and Analysis of Vehicle Vibrations, Proceedings of
the lEST, 1998
SECTION 2: DOCUMENTS PRIMARILY ADDRESSING PHYSICS-OF-FAILURE

AND FAILURE MODES
1. Colin, B., Evaluation de la durée de vie de composants mécaniques soumis à un environnement

chenillé, ASTELAB 90
2. Cushing, M.J., Stadterman, T.J., Krolewski, J.G. and Malhotra, A., Design Reliability Evaluation
of Competing Causes of Failure in Support of Test-Time Compression, IES Proceedings, 1994
3. Dietrich, D.L. and Hassett, T.F., A Bayesian Perspective on Using Physics-of-Failure Approaches
for Test Time Compression, IES Proceedings, 1994
4. Gendre, D., Matra Baé Dynamics, Comportement thermo-hygrométrique d'emballages

pressurisés, Moist control in pressurised containers ASTELAB 97
5. Grégoire, R., Analyse des sollicitations de service, Mémoires et Etudes Scientifiques, Revue de
métallurgie, Novembre 1982
6. Grégoire, R., La prévision de durée de vie en service des structures travaillant en fatigue, Bulletin
SFM, Revue Française de Mécanique n°1988-1, 1988
7. Hu, J.M., Accelerated Automotive Electronics Testing: A Physics-of-Failure Approach, TEST

Engineering and Management, August/September 1996
8. Kowal, M., Equations for Failure Modes of Mechanical Systems, NASA Tech Briefs, LEW-16497
9. Lalane, C., CEA CESTA , A test comparison methodology for dynamic thermal environment field,
ASTELAB 90
C-3
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX C
10. Oliveros, J. H., A Statistical Thermodynamic Physics of Failure Reliability Model, Proceedings of
the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST), 1998.
11. Pecht, M. and Dasgupta, A., Physics-of-Failure: An Approach to Reliable Product Development,
Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences, September/October 1995
12. Perrin, R., Fatigue sous chocs, Rapport ETCA 91 R 095 Décembre 1992
13. Sow, A., Dridi, C., Analyse des défaillances et estimations prévisionnelles des taux, (Synergie du
retour d'expérience et de l'expertise ; approche Bayesienne), ISDF, ESSTIN, ISI, 1997
14. Spang, K., Experimental methodology for accelerated ageing of electrical component,
DNV INGERANSSON AB, ASTELAB 92
15. Stadterman, T.J., Hum, B., Barker, D.B. and Dasgupta, A., A Physics-of-Failure Approach to
Accelerated Life Testing of Electronic Equipment, Proceedings of the IES, 1995
16. Trinquet, P., Thomson CSF, Cosnard, J., AS, Le rayonnement solaire et son influence thermique
réelle, ASTELAB 97
C-4
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D
ANNEX D
GUIDANCE FOR THE ENGINEERING PRACTITIONER
D1 INTRODUCTION
Leaflets are included in this annex to provide further guidance for the engineering practitioner when
addressing the detailed technical issues of the Ten Step Method.
D2 LIST OF LEAFLETS
601 Reverse Engineering
602 Time Compression
603 Incremental Acquisition
604 Physics of Failure
605 Information Requirements for LCEPs (Steps 1 to 3)
606 Probabilistic Analyses
607 Materiel Role and Deployment Changes
D-1
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-2
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
LEAFLET 601 - REVERSE ENGINEERING
1 SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this leaflet is to provide guidance on reverse engineering of Life Cycle
Environmental Profiles (LCEP) for Phase 1 (Steps 1 to 4) of the AECTP 600 process. Reverse
engineering is used to establish a common data format between the design, in-service, and
laboratory test information resulting from AECTP 600 Steps 1, 2, and 3. The common format
permits evaluation of the severity of specific environmental conditions in Step 4. The goal in
Step 4 is to evaluate the available data sources to verify whether the severity of the
environmental conditions from the sum of the 'historical' life plus the proposed extended life is
greater or less than the severity of the environmental conditions defined by the original design
considerations or qualification testing.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Reverse engineering methodology frequently necessary in Phase 1 of AECTP 600 where the
direct comparison of previous in-service conditions with current in-service conditions, or with
environmental test results, is often not directly possible. The necessity could arise from
developments in equipment design technology, or advances in data reduction and testing
technology, or the technical requirement specifications for in-service environmental conditions.
For example, reverse engineering would probably be used in situations:
• where the use of higher strength components makes it easier to achieve the design load
requirements, but their strength characteristics may be expressed in different formats
• where second source suppliers of equipment may require technology updates to the
original qualification and acceptance testing procedures
• where initial production equipment was required to be tested to swept sine vibration
methods rather than to a tailored broadband random
2.2 Phase 1 (Steps 1 to 4) of AECTP 600 (the Ten Step Method) in which the reverse engineering
methodology is conducted is illustrated in Figure 1.
2.3 If the historical life plus the proposed extended life exceed the original equipment design or
qualification testing, an adverse delta exists that must be addressed in the remaining life
extension process steps. An adverse delta is an environmental condition determined from the
LCEP data comparison that indicates a risk exists for the proposed service life extension. For
example, if equipment is not suitable for exposure to further helicopter induced vibration due to
a potential for mechanical isolator failure; the adverse delta is the helicopter vibration
environment. The adverse delta(s) are addressed in Steps 5 through 10 of AECTP 600. If the
proposed extended life does not create an adverse delta, the life extension process can be
concluded at Step 4.
3 LIMITATIONS
3.1 The limitations of the reverse engineering process are:

• the accuracy of the results is highly dependent on the accuracy and detail of the original
laboratory test documentation
• caution must be used in the interpretation of field failure reports to differentiate between
maintenance-induced failures and materiel design limitations
• the success of the task is influenced by the expertise of the environmental engineering
specialists
D-3
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
Step 1 – Research the original LCEP (LCEP-1),

design and qualification severities and
compliance statements.
Step 2 – Research actual life history, design or

production modifications, previous testing,
storage conditions, and prepare an LCEP
(LCEP-2).
Step 3 – Prepare extended life LCEP (LCEP-3)

including complete environmental description
data (ASD, SRS, climatic, etc.)
Step 4 – Compare LCEP-1 with the actual life

LCEP -2 plus extended life LECP-3.
Define the adverse deltas.
Figure 1: Phase One of the Ten Step Method
4 PROCESS
4.1 The reverse engineering process requires the intensive collection and evaluation of all available
information and data on the equipment design, historical and proposed life. Representative life
extension program questions for the steps are listed overleaf.
4.2 Collect the appropriate data and answer the questions necessary to evaluate the severity of the
environmental condition. If necessary apply reverse engineering or environment synthesis to
convert the data into a common comparable format. The comparison basis for Step 4 can be
one of a several formats, such as in-Service time, an equivalent laboratory test time, fatigue
failure stress limit or duration, or comparison by similarity with other equipment.
4.3 The Phase 1 reverse engineering can follow several paths depending on the documentation
available for the materiel design, previous testing and LCEPs. For thoroughly documented
equipment, Phase 1 may only need to compare the natural or induced environments to define
whether the extended life will exceed the design limits. For example, with a known design
specified ASD vibration spectrum and design exposure life, the possibility of an adverse delta
could be evaluated based on the ASD levels for the in-service and extended life. Alternatively,
the use of total driving miles as a comparison basis for the vibration environment with a vehicle
mounted item is possible, provided that the induced vibration is approximately constant during
the equipment life.
4.4 There are occasions where reverse engineering for adverse deltas is not so simple. For
D-4
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
example, the lack of a clear comparison basis to quantify adverse deltas may require the
evaluator to assume a failure mode (or modes), such as fatigue, and use this failure mode for
the Phase 1 evaluation. The assumption of a failure mode in Step 4 of Phase 1 is simply a
mechanism to evaluate deltas when other options do not exist. It does not replace the need to
undertake the full evaluation of failure modes in Step 5 (Phase 2). It may also be beneficial to
perform two evaluations with different comparison bases to provide higher confidence in the
adverse delta conclusion.
4.5 Examples of reverse engineering for vibration and high temperature environments are attached
to this leaflet. These examples are simplified cases that only evaluate one induced environment,
but illustrate the typical problems of establishing a comparison basis and the need for reverse
engineering in the Phase 1 process. AECTP 600 Annex C and Leaflets 602 and 604 provide
reference sources for Physics of Failure, Time Compression and other modelling techniques.
Typical Information Requirements Applicable for AECTP 600 Phase 1
Step 1
• What was the original equipment qualification requirement?
• What environmental simulation qualification tests were performed on the equipment?
Step 2
• What is the actual in-service environment history of the equipment up to the present date?
• Have any design, hardware, or configuration changes occurred during the service life?
• What are the maintenance and failure rate histories of the equipment?
• What environmental simulation re-qualification or production acceptance tests were
performed on the equipment?
Step 3
• Is the extended-life in-service environment defined or a complete LCEP available?
Step 4
• Can the original qualification and historical life information be expressed in the same format
as the proposed extended life information? If not, reverse engineering or transformation of
the data formats is necessary to a common basis.
• Is sufficient detailed information available to reach a definitive conclusion in Step 4? If not,

synthesis of design or actual life environments is necessary to permit evaluation of the
information.
D-5
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
Reverse Engineering Example 1 - Vibration Environment
Life Extension Requirement – A tracked vehicle electrical relay panel (ERP) was designed and
qualified for tracked vehicles 20 years ago with swept sine and sine dwell vibration testing. The ERP is
an electro-mechanical hardware component consisting of voltage regulation, switching electronics and
circuit breaker functions and mounted in the vehicle crew compartment. The proposed life extension
requirement is to field the ERP for an additional 10 years or for 30,000 kilometres on the same or a
similar configuration tracked vehicle. The vibration environment for the vehicle is currently quantified
as swept narrow band random on random (NBROR) vibration. Is the planned continued utilisation of
the ERP hardware acceptable without equipment redesign and re-qualification testing?
AECTP 600 Phase 1 Evaluation – This example addresses only the vibration environment, and omits
answers to some Phase 1 questions. The vehicle mission deployment time is a common basis for
evaluation of the equipment. The original sine vibration tests will be converted to operational hours for
comparison. A complete evaluation would need to evaluate all factors such as the thermal
environment, EMI/RFI stability. Following the general reverse engineering questions listed above,
current research information and remaining evaluation questions are presented below.
Step 1
What was the original equipment qualification requirement?

• The original requirement defines the equipment specification as a 20 year life on a tracked
vehicle. Required reliability is 99.9 % for an average operational time (mission, training, and
maintenance) of 1500 hours/year.
What environmental simulation qualification tests were performed on the equipment?

• An operational laboratory logarithmic swept sine vibration qualification test was performed
on one ERP from 5 to 500 Hz, at 5 g peak to peak, for a duration of 500 hours in three
orthogonal axes.
• An operational laboratory sine dwell qualification test was performed on one ERP for the
frequencies of 75, 150, 225 Hz at 5 g peak to peak, for a duration of 30 minutes in three
orthogonal axes.
• Equipment field reliability and maintainability tests were performed for one vehicle on paved
and off-road conditions for various vehicle speeds during the vehicle development program.
No problems were encountered during these initial trials.
• How many miles does the sine sweep represent? (Leaflet 602 time decompression is
applied below)
Step 2
What is the actual in-service environment history of the equipment up to the present date?
• On what platform(s) was the ERP used? Two related tracked vehicles.
• What was the total exposure time and mileage? Average annual vehicle operational and
deployment time for mission, training and maintenance is 1620 hours/year.
• What was the distribution of the life profile? Which part of the distribution should be used?
• In what geographic location(s) were the vehicles used? World-wide deployment.
• What are the estimated vibration levels associated with the in-service environment(s) for the
D-6
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
vehicle? Current available data indicates a typical 5 to 500 Hz random level of less than 2.0
and 0.6 g rms for the vertical and horizontal or transverse axis respectively.
• Was the in-service environment, training, peace-time or war-time use? Both
• Was the ERP used only as intended? Yes
• Are there any special circumstances associated with the types/skills of the users? No
Have any design, hardware, or configuration changes occurred during the service life?
• Check with the program manager, test engineers and manufacturer(s).
• Were any design changes intended to correct vibration related problems? No
• Did design changes invalidate the qualification testing? Unknown
• Was there more than one manufacturer for the ERP in-service conditions? A second source
supplier started manufacturing and supplying the unit after 15 years. Qualification tests were
not performed for the second supplier ERP.
• Is there product consistency in the fielded units? Original and second source units are
fielded.
What are the maintenance and failure rate history of the equipment?
• Use this information to validate the qualification testing.
• Use this data to focus on the critical component parts.
• Does the maintenance history invalidate the historical data?
Logistics and field user information indicate acceptable reliability for the ERP but, occasional
intermittent electrical circuit failure problems of unknown origin. Maintenance records for failed units do
not indicate specific sub-component reliability problems.
What environmental simulation re-qualification or production acceptance tests were performed on the
equipment?
• A cycled operational laboratory logarithmic swept sine vibration operational lot production
acceptance test was performed from 5 to 500 Hz, at 5 g peak to peak, for a duration of
24 hours in three orthogonal axes.
• A cycled operational laboratory sine dwell operational lot production acceptance test was
performed for the frequencies of 75, 150, 225 Hz at 5 g peak to peak, for a duration of
30 minutes in three orthogonal axes.
Step 3
Is the extended-life in-service environment defined or a complete LCEP available?

• Vehicle maintenance and future upgrades are not expected change the vibration severity of
the vehicle.
D-7
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
• The estimated vehicle operational time and mileage per year in LCEP-3 is the same as
current in-service life LCEP-2, 1620 hours/year operation expected.
Step 4
Can the original qualification and historical life information be expressed in the same format as the
proposed extended life information?
• Convert data from the qualification, actual life and extended life into an exposure time basis
• An alternative approach would be to correlate the sine vibration qualification testing with the
current NBROR environment.
Is sufficient detailed information available to reach a definitive conclusion in Step 4?

• If the sum of the historical and life extension damage potential indicates a risk of failure, then
there is an adverse delta.
• Consider all mitigating data or circumstances.
Exposure Time Evaluation
With the information known and the assumptions below the exposure duration for the ERP in Steps
1-3 are summarised in the table below.
Assumptions:
1. The three axis vibration tests replicate field multi-axis vibration exposure. The calculated
qualification test duration is based on one axis of the testing, 500 hours.
2. Material property factors for the ERP conform to typical electrical-mechanical hardware.
3. Material fatigue is the primary failure mode for the equipment.
Equivalent field exposure time for the sine sweep and dwell qualification tests is calculated from the
application of Miner’s Rule with material factors of the stress-cycle exponent b = 9, damping exponent
n = 2.4, and an acceleration exaggeration factor of 2.0.
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE TIME

Step Test or Exposure Equivalent Time Summation,
Number Time, hours hours
1 Design Requirement, 20 yr, 1500 hr/yr n/a 30,000
Qualification tests :
Swept Sine, 5 g peak, 500 hrs. 45,225
Sine Dwell, 75, 150 225 Hz, 30 min./dwell 136 45,391
2 Production Tests, Sine Sweep & Dwell 2308

Field Deployment, 20 yrs, 1620 hr/yr 32,400 34,708
3 In-service life, 20 yrs 34,708

Extended life, 10 yrs, 1620 hr/yr 16,200 50,908
D-8
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
Conclusion
Exposure times in Table 1 indicate the sine sweep and dwell qualification tests demonstrate an
adequate exposure time (45,391 hours) exceeding the 30,000 hour design value for the ERP tests.
Actual in-service exposure also is greater than 30,000 hours, however Step 2 logistic reports also
indicate intermittent some field failures in current units. An additional 10-year field deployment of the
existing ERP would result in an exposure time that exceeds the current laboratory equivalent vibration
simulation testing time; the delta is 5571 hours or approximately 3 years.
Based on the preliminary information, the vehicle operation vibration exposure is considered an
adverse delta for a 10 year ERP extended life requirement. Several factors also influence the decision.
The qualification tests were performed only on one ERP unit rather than a larger sample size to
provide a greater data confidence. The qualification tests were not performed under controlled climatic
conditions to demonstrate the worldwide deployment reliability of the ERP.
A direct comparison of the equivalence between sine and random vibration exposure is another
option, but subject to debate depending on the assumptions made and choice of equivalence
calculations. Accurate correlation between the previous sine qualification test technology and current
random NBROR vibration technology is difficult to permit demonstration that the original tests meet the
actual environment.
D-9
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
Reverse Engineering Example 2 - High Temperature Environment
Life Extension Requirement – A vehicle voltage regulator, installed in the engine compartment, was
designed and qualified for two tracked vehicles (T1 and T2) 20 years ago. The proposed life extension
requirement is to field the voltage regulator an additional 5 years (25,000 km) on tracked vehicle (T2)
that will be required to operate in a high ambient temperature (+50 ºC) geographical region. Is the
planned utilisation of the voltage regulator on vehicle T2 acceptable without equipment redesign and
re-qualification testing?
AECTP 600 Phase 1 Evaluation – For this case the qualification tests were based on vehicle
temperatures and do not state an ambient temperature condition. The original design and qualification
information will be evaluated to reverse engineer a high temperature ambient design condition.
Following the general list of reverse engineering questions, current research information and
remaining evaluation questions are presented below.
This example deals only with reverse engineering techniques and most of the details have been
removed. For this device the operational environment is assumed to be more severe than the storage
environment. Other issues related to performing Steps 2 and 3 are addressed in Leaflet 605.
Many of the temperatures are stated in degrees Fahrenheit rather than degrees Centigrade to provide
a more realistic example from legacy requirements and test results.
Step 1
What was the original equipment qualification requirement?
• The original requirement defines the equipment specification as a 20 year life on two tracked
vehicles (T1 and T 2) with an operational temperature range of –60 to +250 ºF, and relative
humidity of 5 to 95 % at 140 to 40 ºF. The storage temperature requirement is –60 to
+130 ºF.
What environmental simulation qualification tests were performed on the equipment?
• A 3000 hour + 280 ºF steady state operational qualification test was performed
• A 240 hour (10 cycles) aggravated temperature/humidity test was performed. The climatic
cycle was +60 ºF to + 140 ºF with 95 % RH.
• 48 hour non-operational steady state tests were performed at temperatures of –60 ºF and
+130 ºF.
Step 2
What is the actual in-service environment history of the equipment up to the present date?
• On what platform(s) was the regulator used?
• What was the total exposure time and temperature, operational and non-operational?
• What was the distribution of the life profile? Which part of the distribution should be used?
• In what geographic location(s) were the vehicles used?
• What are the ambient temperatures of the associated with the in-service environments?
D-10
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
• What was the in-service environment, training, peace-time or war-time use?
• Was the regulator used only as intended?
• Are there any special circumstances associated with the types/skills of the users
Have any design, hardware, or configuration changes occurred during the service life?
• Check with the program manager, test engineers, or manufacturer(s).
• Were any design changes intended to correct thermal related problems?
• Did design changes invalidate the qualification testing?
• Was there more than one manufacturer for the regulator?
• Is there product consistency in the fielded units?
What are the maintenance and failure rate history of the equipment?
• Use this information to validate the qualification testing.
• Use this data to focus on the critical component parts.
• Does maintenance history invalidate previous history data?
What environmental simulation re-qualification or production acceptance tests were performed on the
equipment?
• A 24 hour + 280 ºF steady state operational lot production acceptance test was performed
Although the answers to the questions above are applicable to the overall Ten Step Method, in this
example the answers were simplified because the in-service use time and severities were less than
the design requirement.
Step 3
Is the extended-life in-service environment defined; or a complete LCEP available?

• A thermal measurement program for T2 has been performed and data is available for
review.
• A specification has been developed for the new operational temperature data.
• An estimation of the operational time use per year and associated ambient temperature is
available.
A temperature LCEP-3 was developed from measured data for use in this example. The LCEP-3
presented the data as extremes and an average diurnal cycle
Step 4
Can the original qualification and historical life information be expressed in the same format as the
proposed extended life information?
• Convert data from the qualification, history and new environments into terms of equivalent
degradation, an Arrhenius Equation for example. How many in-service hours do the
qualification tests equal? In some cases the environmental conditions provided will not make
D-11
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
sense. In these cases engineering judgement must be used, and it might not be possible to
exploit all the test results.
• In this example an alternate format was used which takes advantage of documented
available analytical procedures.
• Additional method would be to use the cyclic stresses, however original qualification did not
provide a detailed cyclical criteria, therefore no basis for comparison exists.
Is sufficient detailed information available to reach a definitive conclusion in Step 4?

• If the sum of the historical and life extension severities indicates a risk of failure, then there
is an adverse delta.
• Consider all mitigating data or circumstances.
In this reverse engineering example the task in Step 4 is to convert the data from Steps 1 through 3
into a common format. Since the LCEP-3 presented the data in terms of extremes and a diurnal cycle
the next logical step is to convert data from Steps 1 and 2 into common terms. In order to address
potential failure modes there is a need to address both chemical aging and thermal stresses.
Magnitude of the temperature extremes and the number of temperature reversals are critical in the
evaluation of thermal mechanical stresses, while the total time at high temperature is critical to the
evaluation of chemical deterioration. (More information can be found in Leaflets 602 and 604).
The original storage test (280 ºF for 3000 hours) and the successful 20 year high temperature
exposure history indicate that any adverse deltas would be derived from cyclic thermal stresses rather
than steady-state high temperature exposure. To evaluate those stresses, it is necessary for all data
to be presented in some common applicable format. For this example, fatigue damage due to
thermally induced mechanical stress was taken as the common format, and all test and life history
cyclic temperature data is converted into a relative measure of fatigue damage as shown in the
example.
Thermal-Mechanical Stress Evaluation:
In Step 1 the data shows that during qualification testing a total of 10 stress reversals with an 80 ºF
delta each were performed. Additionally one stress reversal with a 130 ºF delta and one stress
reversal with a 60 ºF delta were performed.
Step 2 logistics reports have shown that the regulator demonstrated 99% reliability during 200 days of
operation in a desert region (+70 ºF to +250 ºF, 200 cycles). In addition 90% reliability with a 20 year
service life in an average temperate cycle (+60 ºF to +220 º F, 1000 cycles) was demonstrated for a
sample of 1,000 units.
In Step 3 the extreme temperatures measured were –20 ºF to +250 ºF, the operational low
temperature cycle ranges from –20 ºF to +120 ºF for 100 cycles and a high temperature cycle ranges
from +70 ºF to 250 ºF for 400 cycles.
This information is summarised in Table 1 below. Note that the letter-number designations under the
Storage and Transport column refer to climatic region designations as per STANAG 2895.
D-12
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
TABLE 1 – STORAGE AND TRANSPORT AND DEPLOYMENT CONDITIONS

Step Storage & Transport Deployment
Number
Step 1 -60 ºF for 48 hrs 280 ºF for 3000 hrs
130 ºF for 48 hrs 60 ºF to 140 ºF 95% RH, 240 hrs
Step 2 A2, A3, B2, C0 C1 20 years 90% RH 280 ºF for 24 hr LAT
A2, A3, B2, C0, C1 10 yrs 99% RH 70 ºF to 250 ºF 200 cycles
B3 200 days 60 ºF to 220 ºF 1000 cycles
Step 3 A2, A3, B2, C0, C1 5 year, 90% RH -20 ºF to 250 ºF extremes
B3 200 days 90% -20 ºF to 120 ºF 100 cycles
70 ºF to 250 ºF 400 cycles
There are many different approaches to assess this situation however a rudimentary approach could
be to use the basic Miner-Palmgren cumulative damage hypothesis (see Leaflet 602 for details) to
determine if the thermal stress cycling revealed in Step 2 is sufficient to cover the new LCEP.
Assumptions used in the Miner-Palmgren analysis:
The number of cycles to failure for any given stress range can be estimated from:
Ni = c∆Si-b
The damage for any stress range can be calculated as the number of actual cycles at that stress
range divided by the allowable number (Ni) at that range
Di = ni/NI
The total damage for any condition (eg: Step 3) can be computed as the linear sum of the damage for
each stress range within that condition
D = ΣDi
The stress range is linearly proportional to the temperature range (Reference 20, Annex C, Section 1)
∆S ~ k∆T, thus, Ni = ck∆Ti-b
The rate of change in temperature and the temperature range (delta) is approximately the same
between Steps 1, 2 and 3
A material constant of b = -5 is used. This provides a conservative estimate of the comparison, and is
used because of the small number of cycles (<1000 cycles)
A relative measure of damage between two conditions can be described by:
D1/D2 = (n1/N1)/(n2/N2) = n1N2/n2N1 = n1/n2*N2/N1 = n1/n2 * (∆T2/∆T1)-b
The equivalent damage can be compared for each cyclic condition versus some reference condition
(eg: the 400 cycle section of Step 3), and the damage for each step can be summed and compared to
the sum of the damage for Step 3.
D-13
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 601
TABLE 2 – THERMAL CYCLE DAMAGE

Step Temperature Cycling Damage relative to
Number 400 Cycles of Step 3
Step 1 Ambient to -60 ºF for 48 hrs (1 cycle) 0.00049
Ambient to +130 ºF for 48 hrs (1 cycle) 0.00001
60 ºF to 140 ºF, 10 cycles 0.00043
Step 2 70 ºF to 250 ºF 200 cycles 0.5
60 ºF to 220 ºF 1000 cycles 1.387
Step 3 -20 ºF to 120 ºF 100 cycles 0.071
70 ºF to 250 ºF 400 cycles 1.000
TABLE 3 – THERMAL DAMAGE SUMMATION

Step Total Relative Damage Damage relative to Step 3
Number
Step 1 .00093 0.00087
Step 2 1.887 1.762
Step 3 1.071 1.000
From the above tables, it is demonstrated that the testing performed for Step 1 was insufficient to
address the requirements of Step 3, but the successful history demonstrated in Step 2 indicates that
the regulator has a significantly longer life (re temperature cycling) than that required for Step 3. New
regulators or existing regulators with an in-service life less than the extreme examples shown in
Step 2 will meet the Life Extension requirements shown in Step 3. To assess the thermal /chemical
degradation a similar process could be performed using the Arrhenius equations.
Conclusion
In this example it has been concluded from the reverse engineering process that the thermal
environment does not create an adverse delta. If no other adverse deltas were determined an Exit
Criteria 1 could be applied.
D-14
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 602
LEAFLET 602 - TIME COMPRESSION
1 SCOPE
1.1 This leaflet addresses commonly used time compression techniques, and provides guidance
and limitations on how to perform reverse time compression for the purpose of estimating
original measured in-service levels (see Leaflet 601) or for providing a common time based
comparison of different environments. It provides a link to the available bibliography information
and to STANAG 4370 AECTP 200 Leaflets 2310 and 2410. Examples of environmental
conditions where time compression is appropriate and not appropriate are provided.
2 DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 Time compression is the process of increasing the rate of degradation of materiel in a
quantitative manner. The goal is to shorten the test time by increasing the severity of the
environment using a physics-based method that retains the correct failure mechanisms without
inducing others. When applied properly, time compression is a reversible process (ie: the rate of
degradation can be increased or decreased).
2.2 As stated in AECTP 600 Paragraph 5.4.3, time compression or decompression techniques are
needed to aid comparison of levels. Also as stated in AECTP 600 Paragraph 5.8.2, the
techniques are required for tailoring test severities to make a cost effective test. This technique
is an integral part of the reverse engineering process.
3 LIMITATIONS
3.1 The following limitations and cautions should be noted when considering the use of time
compression techniques:
• some test severities were not originally based upon time compression and, therefore, are
not reversible
• documentation of the original time compression may not be available and consequently
the assumptions and techniques utilised may not be understood
• the relationship of the physics of failure mechanisms to time compression is not always
sufficiently understood for failure modes to be predicted accurately
• the traceability of time compression techniques used for some test programmes may be
unknown
• the complexity of the materiel is such that separating failure modes for time compression
is difficult
• care must be taken to ensure that increasing amplitudes to shorten test time does not
change failure modes
4 TIME COMPRESSION – MECHANICAL ENVIRONMENTS
4.1 General
4.1.1 Time compression can be achieved in a dynamic mechanical environment using frequency
domain and time domain techniques. Both are based on equivalent fatigue between the in-
service environment and the test environment and are based on forms of the Miner-Palmgren
cumulative damage hypothesis. In the frequency domain, time compression is usually
accomplished through the application of an 'exaggeration factor', while the technique in the time
domain is known as 'fatigue editing'. The frequency domain techniques preserve the spectral
D-15
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 602
content (and thus the system transfer function, if conducted properly), but makes the
assumption that material stress is linearly proportional to acceleration across the spectrum. It is
applicable to situations where the failure may occur at some location away from the
measurement location (eg: a circuit card in a radio where the measurement is performed at the
input to the radio structure). Fatigue editing does not preserve the frequency content of the
data, and is generally applicable for testing the same component for which a strain
measurement was made (eg: vehicle suspension control arm when in-service and in a
laboratory test).
4.2 Frequency Domain Technique
4.2.1 It is preferable for materiel to be tested in real-time so that the effects of in-service conditions
are simulated most effectively. However, in many instances real-time testing cannot be justified
on cost grounds, and therefore it is customary to use an acceptable algorithm to reduce test
duration by increasing test amplitude. Provided that fatigue is a significant potential failure
criterion for the materiel under test, then this practice is acceptable within strict limits, notably
that test amplitudes are not over exaggerated (or accelerated) simply to achieve short test
durations. Such excessive amplitudes may lead to wholly unrepresentative failures and cause
suppliers to design materiel to withstand arbitrary tests rather than the in-service conditions.
Therefore any reduction in test duration should be restricted to increasing the test amplitude
only to the limit severities derived for the in-service conditions. Within this constraint
considerable scope usually exists for reducing test duration.
4.2.2 The most commonly used method for calculating a reduction in test duration is the Miner-
Palmgren hypothesis, ie:
Equation (1)
where t1 = equivalent test time

t2 = in-service time for specified condition
S1 = severity (rms) at test condition
S2 = severity (rms) at in-service condition
n = slope of the S/N curve for the appropriate material; a value of 5
is commonly used (See AECTP 200, Leaflet 2410, Annex B,
Paragraph 2.2).
4.2.3 Since most vibration environments are expressed in terms of the power spectral density
function, equation 1 can also be used as:
n/2
t 1 ⎡ W(f) 2 ⎤
=⎢ ⎥
t 2 ⎣ W(f)1 ⎦
Equation (2)
where t1 = equivalent test time

t2 = in-service time for specified condition
W(f)1 = PSD at test condition
W(f)2 = PSD at in-service condition
n = slope of the S/N curve for the appropriate material; a value of 5
is commonly used (See AECTP 200, Leaflet 2410, Annex B,
Paragraph 2.2).
4.2.4 In many instances these equations appear to offer a satisfactory solution. However, caution
should always be exercised in the application of the equations. Some methods of characterising
D-16
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 602
vibration severities, notably PSDs, do not necessarily reproduce under laboratory testing the
same strain responses as those experienced under in-service conditions.
4.3 Time Domain Technique
4.3.1 The time compression technique performed on time domain data is also fatigue equivalence
based, but uses a process of fatigue editing rather than amplitude exaggeration. The technique
is applied to data measured as strain rather than acceleration. A cycle counting technique such
as 'rainflow' counting is performed on the time series data, and a fatigue damage value is
computed from the results of the rainflow histogram. Thus, it is possible to assign a fatigue
damage value to different test conditions or to different sections of a long data record. Time
compression is achieved by eliminating all test conditions or sections of a data record that do
not contribute to the overall fatigue damage. The edited sections of the overall data set are then
joined to make a time-reduced, but equivalent fatigue damage version of the original record.
5 TIME DECOMPRESSION – MECHANICAL ENVIRONMENTS
5.1 It is important to realise that time decompression is only valid if the failure mechanisms are
unaffected by the decompression and that the rate of change in degradation is predictable
between the compressed and uncompressed values. This will only be true over a limited range
of decompression where non-linearities are not significant. Non-linear (dynamically) joints and
rattling components for example are not good candidates for decompression unless the
maximum factored measured data are well understood.
5.2 Care should be taken when attempting to decompress a test schedule. It is unwise to
decompress to the point where the decompressed result are less severe, at some part of the
frequency spectrum, than the maximum factored measured data.
6 TIME COMPRESSION – CLIMATIC ENVIRONMENTS
6.1 General
6.1.1 With regard to temperature and humidity in a natural environment the duration of exposure for
most materials is such that real time testing is not an option. Therefore testing is only practical
for these environments using some form of time compression. Time compression of climatic
environments can be achieved where there is a single dominant chemical degradation
mechanism of a component material that is temperature, or temperature and humidity,
dependant. There are many forms of the time compression model and their applicability is
dependant upon the dominance of certain aspects of the chemical reactions taking place.
6.1.2 All models are essentially based upon an exponential relationship with the activation energy
(Ea - the minimum amount of energy required to enable the reaction) in the exponent. If the
activation energy of the dominant mechanism within the material is not known then time
compression cannot be achieved. Stabiliser depletion (Ea 100+ kJ/mole), oxidisation (Ea 76-96
kJ/mole), plasticiser migration (Ea 75-85 kJ/mole) and diffusion of moisture (Ea 70 kJ/mole) are
known degradation mechanisms that can be adequately simulated through this form of time
compression. Compression can be calculated because the relationship between temperature
and time is log-linear. This will only be true for a very narrow temperature range. Compression
models, which go outside this temperature range, are inappropriate either because of inherent
non-linearity in the material such as step changes (eg: glass transition, melting) or because the
considered degradation mechanism is no longer dominant at those temperatures.
6.2 Arrhenius-Berthelot-Eyring
6.2.1 A commonly used time compression model is the model initially developed by Berthelot from the
Arrhenius equation. This is shown in Equation 3, in its most useful format and includes a
Humidity factor, as considered by Eyring:
D-17
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 602
- Ea Ea
R [T1] R [T2]
× f (H )
t1
K = =e ×e Equation (3)
t2
Where K = the ratio of test time to natural time

t1 = the compressed time
t2 = the natural time
Ea = activation energy
R = the gas constant (0.0083143 if Ea is given in kJ/mole)
T1 = mean (rationalised) temperature during test/compression
T2 = mean (rationalised) temperature in the natural environment
f(H) = function or factor for humidity, default is 1. (See Ref. 8 of Annex C)
6.2.2 The expression f(H) is a usually unknown modifying function or factor of humidity for the
material. It should only be included if it is known and has been proven by experiment.
6.2.3 In many applications this model provides a sufficiently short duration for a test without
exceeding the effective temperature range for the chemical processes under investigation.
However, care must be taken in applying this model and it should not be applied without good
understanding of all the primary chemical, and biological, processes of the constituent
materials.
6.2.4 This and most other empirical time compression models should not be used when T1 or T2 are
less than 10 ºC or greater than 80 ºC, regardless of material, as the results will be at best
misleading and at worst dangerous if used. Some methods of use require a reference
temperature. The reference temperature must be either higher or lower than both T1 and T2
and should remain within the temperature range indicated by the degradation process under
examination.
6.3 Rationalisation
6.3.1 In very simplistic terms, all of the commonly used compression models equate the overall
energy imparted to the material in real environments to the overall energy imparted in a test.
Temperature and time can be envisaged as the two dimensions of a rectangle with energy
being the area of the rectangle. The models compare the rectangles, and if they have the same
area then the overall degradation of the material is calculated to be the same. Because this is
the case, where variation in temperature occurs over the time-period under consideration it is
rationalised to give a single temperature for use in the models.
6.3.2 The data needs to be complete, and presented in a format with sufficiently small time steps to
provide an adequate description of the continuous environment it was taken from. If this is the
case, the data can be rationalised by applying the Arrhenius equation to each discrete time step
and averaging this over all the results before converting back to a rationalised temperature.
However, the data is not always adequate for this method and therefore maximum, mean, or
mean of maximum temperatures often need to be used in the model as a fall back measure.
The value to use will depend upon the application, the material, and the confidence in the data
available. (See AECTP 200 Leaflet 2310 for a full description of rationalisation of temperature
and humidity data.)
6.4 Diurnal Cycling, Fixed Temperature and Aggravated Ageing
6.4.1 In the natural environment, air temperatures follow a distinct daily, or diurnal, cycle. Generally, it
is colder during the hours of darkness with the temperature rising steadily to a peak about mid-
afternoon before dropping off again, lagging behind the movement of the sun. The most
commonly used climatic time compression models do not account for diurnal cycling. However,
application of the mechanical time domain technique described above can be used in
D-18
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 602
association with a similar thermal model, if the application requires that level of detail.
Regardless of the models, it is good practice to include diurnal cycling within any test program.
The changes in temperature can expose real weaknesses in the material associated with
differential expansion and gas diffusion that would not be seen with a single, rationalised,
temperature. However these failure mechanisms are sensitive to the rate of change of
temperature as well as the overall energy imparted, because of this diurnal cycles employed
should not be different from those seen in the natural environment. The '1% maximum' cycle for
the hottest climatic region in which the material will find itself is often found to be the most
effective profile to employ for time compression.
6.4.2 In most cases fixed temperature ageing should only be used to represent storage in long term
or temperature controlled depots. It is not appropriate for simulating storage or use in the full
natural environment as it does not exercise the material thermo-mechanically. Diurnal cycling
should be the preferred method for time compressed testing, unless there is a fully understood
mechanism, which renders a material particularly sensitive to temperature cycling.
6.4.3 It is not appropriate to use aggravated temperature cycling in tests where time
compression/decompression is necessary. Aggravated cycles where either the rate of change
or the maximum (minimum) temperature (or humidity) exceeds the natural maximum level
cannot be compressed/decompressed as there is no direct comparison that can be drawn
between the compressed and decompressed profiles. Aggravated cycles are only really
appropriate in pre-cursor testing or experimentation where the material properties are under
close examination for measurement against a standard, prior to introduction to a new system.
7 TIME DECOMPRESSION – CLIMATIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 It is important to realise that, as in time compression, time decompression is only valid within the
appropriate temperature range and if the dominant degradation mechanism is known to remain
the same in both the compressed and decompressed environments.
7.2 Care should always be taken when attempting to decompress a test profile. After all if a fertilised
chicken egg were heated at 95 ºC for 10 minutes the result would be a hard-boiled egg. If the
same egg were heated at 37 ºC for three weeks the result would be yellow and running around
the ground going 'Cheep'!
D-19
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 602
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-20
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
LEAFLET 603 - INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION
1 SCOPE
1.1 Incremental acquisition enables planned upgrades to be incorporated into materiel procurement
programmes where improvements in technology are expected during the service life of the
system and significant benefits in terms of safety and/or performance would be achieved by
incorporating such technology. This activity must be addressed at the earliest possible stage of
the procurement programme, and should not to be confused with mid-life upgrades which are
applicable to equipment that is already in service.
1.2 This leaflet provides guidance on the strategy that should be adopted during the incremental
acquisition of materiel and on how the Ten Step Method can be used to aid the management of
this process .
2 APPLICABILITY
2.1 This leaflet is applicable to all materiel procurement programmes in which significant
developments in the design of the system (during its service life) are planned from the outset.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Incremental acquisition can have significant benefits to a procurement programme in that it is
intended to reduce the time taken to introduce new key technologies into service. Although this
does not itself represent an extended life requirement, it is considered that the tools of the Ten
Step Method lend themselves to the management of this process.
3.2 Any new procurement programme involving incremental acquisition should adopt the principles
of the Ten Step Method from the outset. Thus the materiel should be developed and qualified to
a recognisable form of environmental engineering control and management process such as
those presented in STANAGs 4370 and 4570 and their associated AECTPs. Even if this is not
the case, it should be possible to apply this process to any technically credible methodology
provided that the relevant information can be re-configured to align with the Ten Step Method in
AECTP 600.
3.3 Provided no role or deployment changes are invoked, then the 'deltas' in Step 4 will essentially
be the original Life Cycle Environmental Profile (LCEP), but the life requirement may be
reduced. If role or deployment changes are invoked then there will be changes to the LCEP and
the guidance given in AECTP 607 should be followed.
3.4 Incremental acquisition provides for equipment capability to be upgraded in a planned way, from
the initial delivery of a specified minimum acceptable performance to the eventual achievement
of target performance, thereby.
• Reducing the risks relative to those associated with traditional procurement methods,
in which large improvements in capability are introduced in a single major
technological step, and reducing the risk of delivering obsolescent equipment and cost
over-runs.
• Allowing systems to be developed and put into service that will incorporate evolving
technology as it becomes available, thus speeding up the introduction of new
technology into service.
• In very fast moving technologies (such as software intensive projects) allowing
systems to be developed with an open architecture to take maximum advantage of
new opportunities.
D-21
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
3.5 Incremental acquisition, planned from the outset, is quite distinct from the application of mid-life
upgrades to existing equipment. These are dealt with through the normal operation of a new
acquisition cycle and arise when it is decided, after examining all available options, that a
requirement for additional capability is best satisfied by the upgrading of existing in service
equipment. These activities are planned, approved and conducted as projects in their own right.
3.6 An example using a generic Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (MRAAM) system is appended to
this leaflet to demonstrate the application of this outline approach.
4 IMPLICATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
4.1 The following issues need to be addressed when considering the procurement of materiel using
incremental acquisition:
• the materiel must be designed to facilitate the incorporation of the upgrades

• all potential interactions between the upgrade and the system must be considered
from the outset, eg: mass, centre of gravity, electrical power requirements, software,
interfaces, etc
• evidence will be required to demonstrate to what extent the upgrade meets the
requirements of the system in terms of performance, safety, environmental conditions,
life, etc
• life requirements for individual sub-systems may be less than the overall life of the
system
• stock control and asset tracking procedures must be implemented to ensure that
information is available on the build standard and service history of all assets and
components
• staggering the purchase of missiles over a number of years may aid the management
of the upgrade programme
D-22
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
Example - MRAAM Missile System
Requirement
The requirement is to introduce the missile with an agreed baseline capability and an initial system life
of 10 years (to be extended to 15 years).
Planned upgrades are: an enhanced seeker after 3 years in service, an enhanced safety and arming
unit (SAU) after 6 years in service, and an enhanced rocket motor after 8 years in service.
An outline of the planned schedule is given in Figure 1.
Concept and Design
The user and system requirements are produced and the decision is made to procure the MRAAM
system using incremental acquisition.
Industry involvement is sought and a single contractor selected.
Baseline Capability
The ability of the missile to meet the safety, performance, environmental and life requirements is
assessed using the principles of the Ten Step Method.
All elements of the system are certified/qualified/approved as safe and suitable for service. (This may
be achieved by allocating an initial life (eg: 5 years) for each element, with phased increases in life
based on further testing, surveillance and assessments).
First Acquisition Increment (after 3 years in service)
An enhanced seeker unit is developed in accordance with the agreed time scales. Following
demonstration of the ability of the unit to meet the performance and integration requirements an
environmental and life assessment programme is conducted. This is achieved using of the Ten Step
Method, modified as follows:
Step 1 The original LCEP was determined during concept and design phase
Step 2 N/A
Step 3 Prepare LCEP for remaining life of the missile based on the original LCEP
Step 4 The ‘deltas’ for the seeker are effectively the output from Step 3
Step 5 Identify the possible failure modes for the seeker unit and determine which produce
potentially critical cases
Steps 6 to 9 are as for the standard Ten Step Method
Step 10 Evaluate the results of the tasks and compile a life statement for the seeker unit
assessing to what extent the requirement is met
In this case only limited additional testing is required and the life statement is based mainly on
analyses and assessments.
D-23
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
Second Acquisition Increment (after 6 years in service)
An enhanced SAU is developed in accordance with the agreed time scales, but integration problems
result in minor mechanical design modifications. Following approval of these modifications an
environmental and life assessment programme is conducted by following the modified Ten Step
Method:
Step 2 N/A
Step 4 The “deltas” for the SAU are effectively the output from Step 3
Step 5 Identify the possible failure modes for the SAU and determine which produce
potentially critical cases
Step 10 Evaluate the results of the tasks and compile a life statement for the SAU
As the SAU contains energetic components and performs a primary safety function in the missile
design, more stringent treatment including significant testing is required. This includes mandatory
safety tests, performance and reliability tests, testing to simulate the LCEP and includes accelerated
ageing to assess the life of the energetic components.
Third Acquisition Increment (after 8 years in service)
An enhanced rocket motor is developed, but delays in the programme mean that a life extension
programme is required for the original motor to the end of Year 10. This life extension element is
carried out in accordance with the standard Ten Step Method.
Once the design issues of the enhanced rocket motor are resolved, additional treatment is carried out
in accordance with outputs of the modified Ten Step Method:
Step 2 N/A
Step 4 The ‘deltas’ for the rocket motor are effectively the output from Step 3
Step 5 Identify the possible failure modes for the rocket motor and determine which
produce potentially critical cases
Step 10 Evaluate the results of the tasks and compile a life statement for the rocket motor
Due to the quantity of energetic material in the rocket motor and the potential consequences of any
accident, stringent treatment including significant testing is required. The life assessment statement
covers the rocket motor for the full remaining life of the missile (ie: out to 15 years service).
D-24
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
Life Extension (after 10 years in service)
At Year 10 all upgrades have been completed and the stockpile consists of a single design standard.
To accommodate the energetic components the life extension requirement to 15 years is met directly
through the application of the standard Ten Step Method in two phases (see Figure 1). However, note
that in this case the enhanced rocket motor does not require any life extension.
D-25
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-26
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
Figure 1: Planned Incremental Acquisition Schedule for MRAAM
Missile System - Years in Service

Incremental Acquisition Phase
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Establish Baseline Capability •
Introduction into Service •
1st Acquisition Increment - Development • •
1st Acquisition Increment - Demonstration • •
1st Acquisition Increment - Introduction •
into Service
2nd Acquisition Increment - Development • •
2nd Acquisition Increment - • •
Demonstration
2nd Acquisition Increment - Introduction •
into Service
3rd Acquisition Increment - Development • •
3rd Acquisition Increment - Demonstration • •
3rd Acquisition Increment - Introduction •
into Service
Life Extension - Phase 1 •

Life Extension - Phase 2 •
Remove from Service •
Note: Schedule assumes a single batch of missiles is purchased in Year 0
D-27
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 603
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-28
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
LEAFLET 604 - PHYSICS OF FAILURE
1 SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of Leaflet 604 is to provide guidance on the use of Physics of Failure (PoF)
techniques to determine if the environmental conditions associated with adverse deltas will
precipitate critical failures based upon the life extension requirements.
2 DEFINITION
2.1 Physics of Failure is a mathematical representation of the relationship between environmental

stresses and failure mechanisms. This approach models the root causes of failure such as
fatigue, fracture, wear and corrosion.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools have been developed to address various material failure
mechanisms and locations. PoF provides the ability to determine the amount of ‘life' already
used by a system in-service by relating time spent in a particular environment to the amount of
damage accumulated.
3.2 To apply a life extension strategy effectively, the engineer will need to know not only the
relevant failure mechanism to be predicted by PoF based models, but also the actual in-service
load conditions the system is experiencing. It is, therefore, necessary to develop a PoF process
methodology that will ensure that the right operational and environmental data are being or
have been collected for PoF fatigue and wear models. This is important because:
• failures are time and amplitude dependent so it is not possible to make quick
assessments
• the PoF process allocates environmental stress levels down to a component that has
been determined to be critical
• the PoF process allows you to focus on critical deployed (mission use) environmental
conditions
• the PoF process links the synergistic effects (such as temperature, humidity and
vibration)
• the PoF process allows evaluation of alternative design ideas or environmental
mitigation techniques
• the PoF process provides a quantitative answer - not just pass or fail
4 LIMITATIONS
4.1 The limitations of this approach are:
models are deterministic rather than stochastic
models need to be validated through testing
models cannot replicate workmanship issues
D-29
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
5 RELATIONSHIP TO AECTP 600
5.1 In Paragraph 5.5.6 of AECTP 600, the application of Physics of Failure processes is required to
quantify the relationship between the environmental conditions and the potentially critical failure
modes.
6 EXAMPLE OF A PHYSICS OF FAILURE PROCESS
6.1 Physics of Failure is a process that addresses root cause mechanisms and driving forces
responsible for equipment failures. Mechanisms can include (but are not limited to) loss of
electrical contact or structural degradation due to corrosion, stresses in materials due to
dynamic or thermal environments, loss of material due to abrasion or insufficient lubrication and
a thermally induced change of material state. The following example of the PoF process applied
to a life extension strategy addresses only metal fatigue failure due to exposure to a harsh
dynamic environment.
D-30
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Example of a Physics of Failure Process
General
The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the development of a process to calculate the
life consumed (ie: damage accumulated) on a critical component of a military trailer. The
process is based on modelling the vibration experienced by the trailer starting with a model of
the applicable terrain. Specific steps for this process are developed and include a PoF analysis
to calculate damage of the trailer as follows:
• development of rigid and flexible-bodied Dynamic Analysis and Design System

(DYNAMIC) models of the trailer;
• development of Finite Element Model (FEM) of the trailer;
• various physical measurements of the trailer for model input and verification;
• dynamic measurement and analysis of the trailer to determine acceleration and stress
history for the terrain classes selected; and
• life prediction on trailer drawbar (weakest part of trailer) for each of the terrain classes.
The selection of the critical components is a combination of what components are the least
reliable and which components are functionally critical to the mission. A combination of general
engineering analysis and past field and test data can be used for the selection process. If no past
data are available, an engineering analysis can be performed using the known environmental
stresses (ie: vehicle vibration, vehicle shock, water, and ground conditions). A simplified finite
element analysis can be performed to locate areas of the trailer with high stress.
Modelling process and models
This modelling and simulation effort involves several engineering disciplines, including:
• Computer-Aided Design (CAD) solid modelling;
• Finite element analysis for deformation and stress;
• Multi-body dynamic analysis for dynamic load history simulation;
• Fatigue life simulation for durability analysis; and
• Experimental testing for model validation.
The modelling approach begins by using terrain data gathered by the test centre for use in the
dynamic models. Dynamic modelling is used for a rigid-body analysis and a flexible-body
analysis using finite element analysis. The flexible-body dynamic model is used to determine
the dynamic accelerations at all points on the trailer during a simulated run of the trailer over a
given terrain. Finally, the university developed software tool is used to integrate results from
dynamic modelling and finite element modelling to determine the stress history, strain history,
and fatigue life. The following sections outline the process of how these modelling approaches
are applied to the trailer.
Computer Aided Design Model
The process of computationally determining the fatigue life of a mechanical system starts by
developing a three-dimensional, parameterized CAD model. Mass and material properties are
assigned to each part of the CAD model, and comparison is made to the physical model. This
comparison includes the total mass, centre-of-gravity location, and total inertia. It is very
D-31
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
important that the CAD model approximates the physical vehicle as closely as possible, since
both the finite element and multi-body dynamics computational models will be derived from it.
The CAD model also forms the basis for consistency for these other models.
Figure 1: Solid Model of Trailer
Finite Element Model (FEM)
In this PoF approach, the finite element model is used for several purposes. The first purpose is
to evaluate the vibration modes, which are used to create the flexible multi-body dynamics
model. These simulated modes are compared to an experimental modal analysis survey of the
physical trailer to validate the analysis. The second purpose of the finite element model is to
evaluate deformations of the trailer, which are used as static correction modes in the flexible
multi-body model. The third purpose is to evaluate the stress and strain under dynamic loading
conditions, which is used to evaluate the fatigue life of each component. For the trailer, a finite
element meshed representation of the trailer, shown in Figure 2, is developed from the CAD
model by exporting the frame and cargo box as an Initial Graphics Exchange Standard (IGES)
representation. The IGES model is meshed using commercial software.
D-32
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Number of Nodes 5114

Element Type and Number:
Quadrangular 3929
Triangular 12
Beam 144
Rigid Bar 1542
Total Elements 5627
Degrees of Freedom 30684
Figure 2: Finite Element Model of Trailer
The vibrational response of the trailer is determined by performing an eigenmode analysis using
a common Finite Element Analysis code. The first eigenmode analysis is derived unconstrained
and an experimental modal analysis is completed approximating an unconstrained trailer. This
allows for a direct comparison of the experimental and analytical mode frequencies and shapes.
The second eigenmode analysis of the trailer is completed by constraining the positions where
the trailer body attaches to the lunette and the axle assemblies. Three static deformation mode
shapes are also determined from this constrained model by sequentially applying a unit force to
each constrained location. The combination of the constrained eigenmodes and static
deformation modes form the basis of the Craig-Bampton mode set which is applied by the
flexible multi-body dynamics model.
Dynamic Model
The initial, rigid-body multi-body dynamics model is developed, using commercial dynamic
modelling software, directly from the CAD model, and thus has matching mass and inertia
properties. It should be noted that the rigid-body dynamic model is a preliminary step which is
needed to create the dynamic flexible-body model. Output from the flexible-body model is used
as input into the DRAW analysis tool. Dynamic properties for the shock absorbers, axles, and
tyres are required to create a workable model. Experimental tests are undertaken to determine
these properties. Once these properties are experimentally determined, the rigid-body model
simulates the trailer assembly dropping from a short height above ground and allowing it to
dynamically settle. This allows for comparison of the ride heights and final centre-of-gravity
locations between the analytical and physical trailers.
The rigid-body, multi-body model is then combined with an existing rigid-body model of the tow
vehicle, as shown in Figure 3. Using terrain data supplied by the test centre, the combined
trailer/vehicle model is traversed across a simulated test course at constant speed. This enables
the evaluation of any simulation difficulties prior to complicating the trailer model with the
addition of flexibility effects.
The flexible-body dynamics model differs from the rigid-body model only in the aspect that the
frame and cargo box of the trailer are made flexible by incorporation of the Craig-Bampton mode
set. As mentioned previously, this involves the solution of the constrained finite element
eigenmode problem and a series of deformation modes, which are referred to as the static
D-33
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
correction modes. The dynamic model software uses an assumed-modes approach to flexible
multi-body dynamics. As such, it is left to the user to determine which selection of eigenmodes
and static correction modes are represented in the model. In this case, the eigenmodes with the
three lowest natural frequencies were selected, along with three static correction modes. The
static correction modes help to compensate for higher frequency, low energy, modes that are
not modelled. In order to be useful, the six modes need to be orthogonalised prior to use in
simulation. Then the flexible-body trailer frame/cargo bed is substituted for what was previously
a rigid-body in the dynamic simulation. Proper selection of flexible-body modes is essential
when trying to calculate dynamic load history. An identical simulation to the previous rigid-body
model simulation is then run, which captures the load history at the axles and lunette and also
the distributed inertial loading for the flexible body.
Figure 3: Combined Vehicle and Trailer Multi-body Dynamics Model
Fatigue analysis in Durability and Reliability Analysis Workspace (DRAW)
A university developed software package called DRAW is used to determine the durability of the
trailer, based on its dynamic load history calculated from the dynamic model. The dynamic load
history, determined through simulation, is applied as the boundary conditions to the finite
element model to quasi-statically determine the stress/strain history of the trailer frame and
cargo box. In the DRAW software, the dynamic stress/strain analysis procedure couples the
nonlinear gross motion with the linear elastic deformation using a new quasi-static hybrid
method. The procedure estimates multi-axial, elastic-plastic stress-strain history in selected
local regions. Two well-known methods, the Neuber method and the Glinka method, which are
both based on matching known elastic and unknown elastic-plastic solutions in terms of energy,
are used in DRAW to obtain the dynamic strain history.
The DRAW software then uses a rain-flow counting procedure to determine the cyclic loading.
Since the dynamic stress history contains a very large amount of data, with variable amplitudes,
it is necessary to use peak-valley editing before the fatigue life can be determined. This editing
procedure removes small cyclic changes which would appear as straight lines on a stress-strain
diagram, while leaving those cycles which result in closed hysteresis loops. These cycles are
then transformed into a number of constant amplitude strain histories which are used in the
fatigue life prediction process. The DRAW software uses the Palmgren-Miner linear damage
summation law (Miner's Rule) to assess the damage caused by each loading cycle. Miner's
Rule simply states that failure will occur when the summation of the damage D caused by
D-34
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
individual cycles exceeds unity, or
n
D = ∑ Di = 1
i =1
where n is the total number of cycles defined by the rain-flow counting procedure, and Di is the
th
damage accumulated from the i cycle. Miner's Rule defines the damage per individual cycle as
1
Di =
(Nf ) i
where (Nf)i is the fatigue crack initiation life for the ith cycle, obtained from the nonlinear strain
relationship. The fatigue crack initiation life is assumed to be where the cyclic load history will
cause formation of a 2 mm crack. Let the total accumulated damage for a loading block be
Dblock, Miner’s rule predicts failure when Dblock = 1. After the fatigue damage for a
representative segment or block of load history has been determined, the fatigue life for each
block is calculated by taking the reciprocal. It can be expressed in a form that directly yields the
variable amplitude fatigue life in “block to failure” Lf as:
1 1 1
Lf = = =
n
⎛ ⎞
∑ D ∑ ⎜⎜ 1
Dblock n
i ⎟⎟
i =1 N i =1 ⎝ f ⎠i
where n = number of cycles in a loading block, Nf = cycles to failure.
For the trailer, a von Mises strain approach is initially used to determine ‘hot-spots’, or those
finite element nodes which have the lowest fatigue life in a given region. Around these nodes,
the finite element mesh is refined. From this refined finite element model, an updated flexible-
body dynamic model is redefined and simulated in order to calculate the proper inertial loading
for the dynamic stress computation procedure. DRAW is then used to apply a critical plane
method (either tensile-based or shear-based) to more accurately assess the fatigue life in those
regions. This two-stage procedure is required, since it is not feasible to simulate or to analyze
the whole trailer using a fully refined finite element mesh. Figure 4 shows the flow of information
within DRAW.
D-35
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Interface Dynamic Frame

DADS_READER Information Information
DADS Load Vector Dynamic Preliminary

Output File Calculation Tool Parameters Analysis Tool
Dynamic Quasi Static Superposition Dynamic Stress Critical

Vehicle
Analysis Load Vectors Tool Time History Region
System
DADS
CAD FEA Tool Stress Refined

ANSYS & Coefficients Analysis Tool
Pro/E Model
(LCA) NASTRAN
Solid Modeler Crack Initiation Life
Geometr y
PA TRA N or FE Model DRAW
HyperM esh Predicts Fatigue Life
Finite Element
Analysis Tool
Figure 4: Flow of Information within DRAW
Summary of Experimental Validation
In this study a physical trailer is available to test and compare to the virtual prototype models,
which provides a distinct advantage. In general, when applying any computational tool, model
verification and validation needs to be incorporated into the overall development and modelling
scheme. Rather than decrease the amount of testing required to field a system, the virtual
prototyping process and, in particular, computational durability analysis focuses the types of
experimental tests to be performed and the types of instrumentation involved in those tests. In
the case of the trailer involved in this study, the experimental tests include the following:
• Profilometer measurements of the test courses used for validating the physical trailer;
• Physical measurements of the trailer components which differed or were not included
in the blueprints;
• Mass/inertia measurements of the trailer, its subassemblies, and its individual parts;
• Dynamic tests of the trailer spring rates, shock absorbers and tyres;
• Modal analysis tests of the trailer frame and cargo box; and
• Instrumented tests of the vehicle/trailer combination on the test courses used in the
simulations.
Physical Measurements
The physical measurements and the mass/inertia measurements are used to validate the CAD
model. Validation involves matching the component masses, the overall centre-of-gravity
location, and the yaw moment of inertia of the trailer. The moments of inertia of the wheel and
axle assembly and the entire vehicle are determined using a pendulum platform as shown in
Figures 5 and 6.
D-36
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Figure 5: Moment of Inertia Measurement of Wheel and Axle Assembly
Figure 6: Yaw Moment of Inertia Measurement of Entire Trailer
Since the other computational models were derived from the CAD model, these properties are
required before any additional modelling can proceed. At this stage, the largest number of
questions and uncertainties could arise from items such as the tyres and hitch assembly, which
are not unique to this trailer. The same wheels and tyres are used by the tow vehicle.
Once the CAD model of the trailer is completed and validated, development of both the finite
element and multi-body dynamic models can proceed. Each model requires different data and
validation procedures. In particular, the multi-body dynamic model requires data for components
which cannot be represented with strictly geometric information. Spring and damping rates are
required for both the trailer suspension and tyres. Stiffness of both the suspension and the tyres
are determined independently by static force-deflection measurements. Damping and natural
frequency of both are determined by a quick release drop method. Cycle counting of the
D-37
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
resultant displacement time history is used to compute natural frequency, and a log decrement
and exponential curve fit technique of the same time history is used to compute the damping
ratio. The trailer suspension is rendered inactive during the tyre measurement phase, and tests
are conducted at tyre pressures of 17 psi (trailer inflation pressure), 26 psi, 35 psi (vehicle front
tyre inflation pressure) and 40 psi (vehicle rear tyre inflation pressure). A typical decay time
history is shown in Figure 7.
Typical Tire Dynamic Test

Average Time History From All Vertical Drops
Right Tire - 17 psi Inflation Pressure
0.8
Damping Fraction Values

0.6 + Decrement Method: 0.068
+ Curve Fit Method: 0.067
Displacement - Inches
0.4
-Decrement Method: 0.056
- Curve Fit Method: 0.057
Overall Average: 0.062
0.2
0.0
-0.2 Average
+Decrement
-Decrement
-0.4 + Curve Fit
- Curve Fit
-0.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Time - Seconds
Figure 7: Determination of Damping Ratio from Decay Time History
In addition to drop tests for tyre natural frequencies, rolling tyre tests are performed on the
Belgian Block test course at four different speeds and at four tyre pressures.
Mode Frequencies and Shapes
While the finite element model can be developed strictly from the material property and
geometric information, validation of the finite element model requires an experimental modal
test. The experimental modal analysis is conducted using an instrumented hammer-impact
technique. Response is measured at 54 locations on the frame under the trailer frame/bed
assembly. The trailer is tested with the wheels and axle removed (frame and bed only) and is
suspended from bungee cords connected from the trailer lifting points on each corner to an
overhead frame. This configuration represents an unconstrained set of boundary conditions for
the trailer. A photograph of the basic setup is shown in Figure 8, and the geometrical distribution
of response measurement locations is shown in Figure 9. The first three modes from the
experimental procedures and the FEA show close agreement in shape and frequency.
D-38
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Figure 8: Experimental Modal Analysis Setup Showing Bungee Cord

Suspension and Impact Hammer
D-39
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Figure 9: Experimental Modal Analysis Response Locations
Strain Measurements
Final validation is accomplished with instrumented, on-course testing. This includes

both accelerometers and strain gauges at locations determined by the computational
analysis. The test course used for both the computational and physical testing is more
than two miles long. Vertical elevations are measured by a profilometer at 3-inch
increments to provide a digital representation of the course. Test course elevation data
are presented as vertical elevation as a function of course distance and as a wave
number spectrum (power spectral density in the spatial domain). An example of test
course elevation measurement data is shown in Figure 10. Results from the flexible
multi-body dynamic analysis can be validated with the accelerometer data, while the
dynamic strains determined by the DRAW program are validated using the strain
gauge data.
D-40
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
Typical Test Course Microprofile

Wave Number Spectrum
10
RMS Roughness 90th Percentile = 3.16 Inches
0.5 to 64 feet Average = 3.03 Inches
1 10th Percentile = 2.88 Inches
PSD Magnitude (Ft /Cycle/Ft)
0.1
2
0.01
Ave + 3 dB
0.001 90th Percentile
Average
0.0001 10th Percentile
Ave - 3 dB
0.00001
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Wave Number (Cycle/Ft)
Figure 10: Test Course Wave Number Spectrum
Conclusions
Accurate models cannot be developed without adequate measured information as input and
without validation against measured data. A project of this level of complexity is by necessity a
team effort between analytical modellers and laboratory testers. In general, modellers are not
testers and testers are not modellers, but both are crucial to the PoF process.
The dynamic model should be fully validated against a variety of test conditions before
proceeding to further analysis (eg: fatigue prediction). The accuracy of the dynamic model
proved to be the most difficult part of the process
The same error screening techniques used for measured data can and should be used for data
generated from models. It is standard practice to check measured data for error sources (drop
outs, dc shifts, noise spike, etc). Data generated from models are commonly accepted without
such scrutiny. This omission could create a problem should it be determined (late in the project)
that corrupt data from the 'settling' process occurs in the dynamic model. Such corrupt data can
result in drastically skewed fatigue predictions. Problems recognised in measured data, such as
aliasing, can also occur in data produced from computer generated models.
D-41
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 604
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-42
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 605
LEAFLET 605 - INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LCEPS (STEPS 1 TO 3)
1 SCOPE
1.1 The scope of this leaflet is to give specific guidance on:

• information/data required to perform Steps 1, 2 and 3 of the Ten Step Method
• how to retrieve/acquire, validate, process and store the required information/data
• existing appropriate data sources
1.2 Most of the information/data required is related to life cycle environmental profiles for the
materiel at the development stage, as presented in STANAG 4370 (see AECTP 100
Paragraph 6 and Annexes D and E). Details on environment descriptions are given in
AECTP 200.
1.3 Environmental data from materiel that has been developed using the principles of
STANAG 4370 and in particular the tailoring process (see Paragraph 5 of AECTP 100), are
more likely to provide effective inputs to a life extension process such as the Ten Step Method.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 An extensive amount of information is available from materiel development and subsequent
in-service life sources which have relevance to life extension programmes.
2.2 In the Ten Step Method Steps 1, 2 and 3 need the largest quantity of data on logistic aspects,
mission profiles and operation. Ideally, these data are documented during the initial
development of the materiel and in-service deployment. These data can also include design
modification assessments for materiel arising from new in-service requirements.
2.3 Of particular concern are:

• changes in service usage that could produce environmental stresses not accounted for
in the original design and test qualification sequence
• data from the handling techniques currently in use in the logistics community that may
not be in a usable format for this process. Specifically, the information collected may be
in a different format from that of the original assessment, or the mechanical conditions
currently used are obviously different to those used in the original logistics cycle
2.4 Leaflet 606 is intended to assist in assembling and validating the existing information and the
definition of the requirements for acquiring new information.
3 TYPES OF DATA REQUIRED
3.1 Step 1:
3.1.1 Step 1 consists primarily of researching the original Life Cycle Environment Profile (LCEP)
document(s) for the materiel. The result of this research is known as LCEP-1 in AECTP 600.
3.1.2 For older materiel where the development programme was not carried out according to tailored
methodology, such as STANAG 4370, that introduces the concept of Life Cycle Environmental
Tailoring, it is necessary to conduct the research from existing documents such as
environmental design criteria documents, environmental test specifications, logistic
requirements etc.
D-43
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 605
3.1.3 For recently developed materiel, most of the necessary information will be found in the
programme documents compiled during the development process, eg: life cycle profiles, life
cycle environmental profiles, environmental test requirements and specifications, logistic
requirements, etc.
3.2 Step 2:
3.2.1 In Step 2 the actual in-service materiel history is researched. The starting point for this step can
be the information gathered at Step 1, altered and/or expanded to reflect the actual use of the
materiel to date. This research is achieved by evaluation of field use records including:
• system malfunction log cards and reports, design modifications and manufacturing
changes
• the data from field recording equipment such as environmental data loggers (EDLs)
• stockpile reliability, system monitoring and surveillance data
3.2.2 The information could be stored in the form of data bases containing discrete or analogue data,
or in field/malfunction reports.
3.2.3 This documentation is used to create the actual in-service LCEP. The result of this research is
known as LCEP-2 in AECTP 600.
3.2.4 To achieve an effective LCEP-2, it is critical to complete an evaluation of the different materiel
configurations currently in-service. Owing to manufacturing process changes, field repairs, and
a range of usage profiles, several different materiel configurations/ usage profiles may exist. If a
life extension is to be applicable to the complete materiel population, then each configuration/
profile should be included and treated as a distinct population for evaluation purposes.
3.3 Step 3
3.3.1 Step 3 focuses on the preparation of an LCEP for the proposed extended service life
requirements. The result of this research is known as LCEP-3 in AECTP 600
3.3.2 As stated previously, the proposed LCEP should be presented in sufficient detail to describe
fully the specified environmental conditions that induce stress in the materiel. To compile
LCEP-3 requires the same categories of data to be researched as that for LCEP-2.
4 DATA BASES CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 If the principles of Steps 1, 2 and 3 are well understood, then it should also be clear that
considerable effort is required to achieve an effective LCEP for each step. It should also be
obvious that the three LCEPs should be compiled in a consistent format. The required data for
the LCEPs can be divided into different categories.
4.2 Data non-specific to the programme
4.2.1 These data are, for instance:

• natural climatic data (characteristics of the surrounding open-sky environment)
• dynamic environments during logistic transport in non-specific carriers
• surrounding electromagnetic environments during handling and storage
4.2.2 These data may have already been acquired, processed and stored in data bases that meet the
necessary quality assurance standards. Natural climatic data for instance are acquired and
D-44
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 605
processed following internationally agreed procedures to provide reliable statistical information.

Published Standards (such as DIN 30787) are also useful when addressing the dynamic
transport environments.
4.3 Data specific to the programme
4.3.1 These data are for instance:

• induced temperatures during tactical deployment
• dynamic stresses during tactical missions
• electromagnetic environments during operational missions
4.3.2 This second category of data is more difficult to obtain without specific measurement. Numerical
simulation and laboratory testing can sometimes be used to provide these data.
4.3.3 The availability of these data may be restricted to those engaged on the programme. Also such
data are not always archived in multi-purpose databases. Programme managers should take
into account the need to retrieve these data (and the associated data processing) after some
years of deployment, when life extension capability would be expected to be evaluated for the
materiel. Storage in a database specific to each programme with a standardised format would
certainly help to resolve this difficulty.
5 SOURCES OF DATA/INFORMATION
5.1 This paragraph lists existing sources of published data that may be useable for life extension
programmes. It is important to note that the listed sources allow only a part of the process to be
conducted. The missing data are generally specific to one materiel programme and should be
obtained via the Programme Manager.
Life cycle description
• STANAG 4370 AECTP 100
• CIN-EG01 (FR)
Climatic data
• STANAG 2895
• STANAG 4370, AECTP 230 and 300
• Def Stan 00-35 (UK)
• Mil-Hbk-310 (US)
• GAM-EG 13 Annexe données d'environnement (FR)
• National meteorological services
Mechanical data
• STANAG 4370, AECTP 240 and 400
• Mil-Std-810 (US)
• GAM-EG 13 Annexe données d'environnement (FR)
D-45
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 605
Example of typical questions arising when preparing LCEP-2 and LCEP-3
The example chosen is an externally carried store whose air carried life is required to be extended.
The store will be carried on the original aircraft platforms. This example addresses two typical
environments (one mechanical and one climatic environment) to which the store would be exposed.
The following list is intended to depict the range of issues to be addressed:
SERVICE HISTORY INFORMATION
• Manufacturing/Design changes
• Service use change
• Captive carriage platform
- Fixed wing or rotary wing
- Pylon, fuselage or wing tip carriage
- Launcher type
• Storage history
- Type of shelter/duration
- Geographical location
- Anomalies
• Handling
• Transportation
• Maintenance
• Repair-work
• Deployment history
• Training history
• Testing
- Qualification reports
- Surveillance reports
- MTBF
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION DATA
Mechanical Environment
Vibration
Captive carriage
- Platform
- Platform configuration
- Manoeuvre (event type)
- Angle of attack
- Speed
D-46
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 605
- Load factor
- Altitude
- Duration of event
- Position on platform
- Launcher type
Store configuration
- Materiel
- Power On/off
Instrumentation
- Location and orientation
- Frequency response
- Transducer type
Data analysis
- Duration of acquisition
- Time history
- Spectral analysis (calculation methodology)
- Analysis frequency bandwidth
- Degrees of freedom (quality criteria)
Climatic Environment
In-flight susceptibility to:
- Sand/Dust
- Icing – freezing rain
- Hydro-meteorites (hail, snow, rain)
- Fog
- Low pressure
- Temperature
Temperature during air carriage
Captive Carriage
Platform
Manoeuvre (event type)
- Angle of attack
- Speed
- Altitude
- Weather conditions
- Duration (parameters)
- Position
D-47
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 605
- Launcher type
Configuration
- Store (materiel)
- Power On/off
Instrumentation
- Location and orientation
- Frequency response
- Transducer type
Data Analysis
- Duration of acquisition
- Time history
(Calculation methodology)
Max, min, average
(Quality criteria)
D-48
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
LEAFLET 606 - PROBABILISTIC ANALYSES
1 SCOPE
1.1 This leaflet provides guidelines for situations where probabilistic analyses are needed to
consider the statistical variations in both the effects of environmental conditions and materiel
design and/or manufacturing tolerances. Probabilistic analyses in this context are used to
evaluate the risk of failure for probabilistic environmental stresses applied to materiel and the
resulting probabilistic response (resistance) of materiel to these stresses during an extended
life.
2 BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS
2.1 This leaflet complements the approach of the Ten Step Method by providing a method to:
a. Quantify the adverse deltas as determined in AECTP 600 (Step 4)

b. Evaluate the adverse delta and associated failure mode criticality, AECTP 600 (Step 6)
c. Define complementary test severities in the case where tests are proposed as a treatment
option at AECTP 600 (Step 7)
2.2 The leaflet guidelines refer to the real environment that may be encountered according to the
Life Cycle Environmental Profiles (LCEPs), relevant associated failure modes and materiel
permissible stresses. Intended levels of confidence are derived for the proposed test levels
which materiel would be expected to perform to prove their ability to meet the extended life.
2.3 Two coefficients are introduced which are referred to hereafter as the Guaranty Coefficient (CG)
and Test Factor (TF). The understanding of these terms is key to the satisfactory application of
this methodology
2.4 Definitions:
Environmental stresses:
Environmental stresses appear as a part of a LCEP where they have to be described
qualitatively and quantitatively. These descriptions of environmental stresses are the baseline
for comparative studies with the output from the actual life history to date (Step 2), plus the
output from the extended LCEP (Step 3); see AECTP 600, Paragraph 3.2.
Cumulative distribution function :

Function associating a probability that an environmental stress is higher than a given value.
FS(x) = Probability (Stress > x)
Probability of failure :
In a case where a given failure mode is under focus, the probability of failure is defined through
the particular environmental stress that will precipitate the failure:
P = probability of failure = probability (Environmental stress > Resistance)
Thus, the reliability of materiel in relation with a given failure mode is the complementary
function of the probability of failure: R = (1 – P).
Probability density function :
D-49
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
This function is the derivative of F.
fS(x) = Probability ( x < Stress < x+dx )
3 APPLICATION
3.1 The probabilistic analyses could be used in the following steps of the Ten Step Method:
Step 1, for the environmental description of the original LCEP (LCEP-1)
Step 2, for the environmental description of the history to date LCEP (LCEP-2)
Step 3, for the environmental description of the extended LCEP (LCEP-3)
Step 5, for the identification of the potentially critical cases (regarding possible failure modes)
Step 6, for the determination of probable critical cases
3.2 The approach described here needs to be applied for each potential failure mode either to
quantify the criticality of the failure mode, or to provide the design margin needed for a materiel
to withstand the extended life and/or the new environmental stresses associated with materiel
role and deployment changes.
4 LIMITATIONS
a. The application of this methodology requires a knowledge of (and confidence in) the
distribution of the environmental stresses and materiel strengths.
b. The application of a probability distribution requires verification of the environmental stress

and materiel strength distributions. A normal Gaussian probability distribution allows a
simplified analysis, however one or both of the distributions may not be Gaussian.
5 STATISTICAL DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSES AND MATERIEL

PERMISSIBLE STRESSES
5.1 The characteristics of environmental stresses are such that they often need to be described in
statistical terms. Often they are described in terms of cumulative distribution functions. For
example, STANAG 2895 refers to the 1% temperature value in the most extreme calendar
month. However the highest temperature of a given calendar month will not be the same from
one year to another. And, if the resistance of materiel towards high temperature is under
consideration, the overall Ten Step Method needs some values of temperature to be used as
references in Step 1, 2 and 3 for comparison at Step 4, to determine and document deltas.
5.2 The resistance to a given environment may also vary from one item to another for a particular
materiel. Therefore this will also affect the available design margin. Graphical representation of
a probability of failure is presented in Figure 1. By plotting the statistical distribution of the
intensity of an environmental stress and the statistical distribution of the resistance of materiel to
that particular stress on the same figure, the probability that stress leads to failure as the
overlap of the two curves can be shown. The upper plot of the Figure 1 shows a 5 % probability
of failure and the bottom plot shows a 1% probability of failure.
D-50
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes.
Figure 1: Comparison Between Environmental and Materiel Permissible Stresses
6 DEFINITION OF GUARANTY COEFFICIENT
6.1 The mathematical expression associated with F (Resistance > Environmental Stresses) is
defined in Equation [1] for a specific failure mode:
+∞
F=P(R>E) = P(R-E>0) = ∫0
f R − E ( x).dx [1]
The derivation of this formula is given in Appendix A. This defines the Guaranty Coefficient,
Equation [2], that will be sufficient to prove that a materiel with mean resistance Error! Objects
cannot be created from editing field codes. will withstand environmental stresses with mean
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. with a given probability F
R
CG = [2]
E
6.2 If both environmental stresses and resistance of materiel are distributed according to a normal
probability function Equation [3] is developed. Therefore the mean resistance of materiel is
shown to be a simple function.
1
R = E + Erfp −1 ( F − ) × σ R + σ E
2 2
[3]
2
It is often the case that the standard deviation of the resistance of materiel is not known but the
ratios for the coefficient of variation of the resistance (CVR) and the coefficient of variation of
the environment (CVE) are known:
σR σE
CVR = , CVE = Then Equation [ 1 ] can be written as:
R E
1 R −E 1 CG − 1
F= + Erfp ( ) = + Erfp ( ) [4]
2 σR +σ E
2 2 2 CVE + CG 2 × CVR 2
2
This can be simplified as follows:
D-51
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
R = E + Aerf × σ R + σ E
2 2
Figure 2 is a plot of Aerf against the probability of failure P = (1 - F).
6.3 Knowing that the resistance of a materiel is normally distributed with a standard deviation of
2 ºC and assessing for a normal distribution of temperature, associated with a mean of 30 ºC
and a standard deviation of 3 ºC, it is necessary to calculate the minimum mean resistance of
materiel that will provide a probability of failure lower than 1%.
R = E + Aerf × σ R + σ E
2 2
R = 30 + Aerf (1 − 0.99) × 2 2 + 3 2 = 30 + 2.33 * 13 ≅ 38.4°C
The materiel under consideration has been designed and qualified according to the hypothesis
above. It is proved to have a resistance normally distributed with a mean of 40 ºC and a
standard deviation equal to 2 ºC.
Figure 2 Aerf Function Versus Probability of Failure
D-52
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
The extended LCEP proposes deployment where maximum daily temperatures in August are
normally distributed with a mean of 32 ºC and a standard deviation of 2 ºC. It is necessary to
calculate the probability of failure on any given day in August.
R −E
R = E + Aerf × σ R + σ E ⇔ Aerf =
2 2
σ R2 +σ E2
So Aerf = (40 − 32) / 2² + 2² ≅ 2.83

-3
Hence, according to Figure 2: F = 100% x (1 – 2 x 10 ) = 99.8 %
There is approximately a 0.2 % probability that the environmental stress will exceed the
resistance of the material. Thus, it can be concluded that the life extension does not require any
further assessment of this environment for this material.
6.4 In the case of a non-Gaussian distribution for either the environmental stress or resistance an
appropriate closed form equation or a numerical function represents the distribution. Mechanical
systems often follow a log-normal distribution. The Guaranty Coefficient for a specific
distribution can be developed similar to the Gaussian distribution examples shown in
Appendix A.
7 DEFINITION OF TEST FACTOR
7.1 In a case where tests are proposed as a treatment option at Step 7, the following methodology
will allow the calculation of the test severities that will prove whether material has the required
mean resistance towards an identified failure mode and its associated environmental stresses.
The introduction of a guaranty coefficient helps in defining the mean resistance of material that
has to be proven in order to deal with an acceptable risk of failure. Introduction of a test factor is
then used to take into account the limited number of test specimens on which the tests are
performed. In Leaflet 606, if testing is performed on n test items, all n must pass the tests,
where n is the sample size. The test factor is then defined as a coefficient between the mean
resistance to be proven and the test level needed to prove this mean resistance.
7.2 The methodology is based upon the fact that one can demonstrate a performance over the
whole population of items by demonstrating a ’something greater’ over only a limited set of
items. The mathematical expressions aim at quantifying that ’something greater’ by introducing
the notion of ‘confidence level’. The following applications illustrate the relationship between test
factor and both number of test items and confidence level.
7.3 In a case where materiel resistance is normally distributed, the analytical expression of the
confidence interval Equation [ 4 ] is the following:
π σ π σ
Xˆ − Erfp −1 ( 0 ) × ≤ X ≤ Xˆ + Erfp −1 ( 0 ) ×
2 n 2 n
Where:
X ,σ are the mean and standard deviation of the materiel resistance
X̂ is the mean resistance of the set of items
π0 is the confidence level
D-53
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
−1 π
Function Erfp ( 0 ) is called probability factor and is noted a’. [5]
2
The test factor may then be calculated with the following equation:
⎛ π ⎞ CVR
TF = 1 − Erf −1 ⎜ 0 ⎟ × [6]
⎝ 2 ⎠ n
Simple applications are proposed hereafter to illustrate the methodology.

Figure 3 is a plot of the probability factor a’ versus the confidence level π0
( 1 - Confidence Level )
Figure 3 Probability Factor a’ Versus Confidence Level π0
7.4 Example to determine a test level in accordance with a given confidence level
We assume that a set of 4 items is devoted to the test. The experience over the technology
used leads to consider a Gaussian distribution of the resistance of the items with a standard
deviation of 2 ºC. We aim at a confidence level of 90%.
What is the test level that will demonstrate with a confidence level of 90% that the mean
resistance of materiel is greater or equal to 40 ºC?
D-54
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
The formula [ 5 ] leads to determine the minimum test :
π σ
Xˆ ≥ 40 + Erfp −1 ( 0 ) × ≅ 40 + 1,64 × 2 / 4 = 41.64°C
2 n
A test level of 42 ºC applied with success to 4 specimens, n = 4, is sufficient to demonstrate a
mean resistance of the materiel of 40 ºC with a confidence level of 90%.
8 BENEFITS
8.1 The following benefits are realised from the probabilistic analyses approach:
a. Uncertainties in the relationship between environmental conditions and materiel design

strengths are assessed.
b. An overview and analytical methodology for determining probable critical cases are
provided for use in the Ten Step Method.
c. Managers are encouraged to plan for the specified materiel reliability parameters.
d. A structured process for the calculation of test severities as part of Step 7 is provided for
use in the Ten Step Method (formulate treatment options).
e. Test severities can be selected to prove an acceptable level of reliability.
f. Tests can be selected according to an identified failure mode, which may be a function of
static strength or fatigue and may or may not be a function of time.
9 REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
a. GAM EG-13, Annexe Generale Mecanique, Annexe 8
b. Lalanne, Christian, Vibration and Mechanical Shocks, Volume 5, Hermes Edition
D-55
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
APPENDIX A
Derivation of the Guaranty Coefficient
Assuming a normal probability density function for the environmental stresses and resistance of
materiel to those environmental stresses,
+∞
F=P(R>E) = P(R-E>0) = ∫
0
f R − E ( x).dx
Knowing that a difference of two normally distributed variables is normally distributed, the difference
∆ = R-E may be described as follows:
∆ ∈ N (∆ = R − E , σ ∆ = σ R + σ E )
2 2
−
(t − ∆ )²
1 2σ ∆ 2
This assumes a probability density function of the form: f∆ = ×e
σ ∆ 2π
−
(t − ∆ )² ∆
σ∆ t²
∞ ∞ 1 1 −
Hence: F = ∫ f ∆ ( x).dx = ∫ ×e 2σ ∆ 2
dt = ∫ × e 2 dt
0 0
σ ∆ 2π −∞
2π
This may be written with the Error Function, Erfp
∆
t²
1 1 x −
F= + Erfp( ) where Erfp ( x ) = × ∫ e 2 dt
2 σ∆ 2π 0
1
R = E + Erfp −1 ( F − ) × σ R + σ E
2 2
2
In conclusion:
R = E + Aerfp × σ R + σ E
2 2
1 1
with Aerfp( x) = Erfp −1 ( F − ) = Erfp −1 ( − P )
2 2
Or, with the coefficient of variation of the resistance (CVR) and the coefficient of variation of the
environment (CVE) notation:
σR σE R
CVR = , CVE = and CG =
R E E
1 R−E 1 CG − 1
F= + Erfp( ) = + Erfp ( )
2 σ R2 + σ E2 2 CVE 2 + CG 2 × CVR 2
D-56
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 606
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-57
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 607
LEAFLET 607 MATERIEL ROLE AND DEPLOYMENT CHANGES
1 SCOPE
1.1 This leaflet provides a series of precursor measures to enable the Ten Step Method to
accommodate revised requirements arising from changes to the materiel's role or deployment
scenarios.
1.2 The measures prevent predictable failures from interrupting the structured approach of the Ten
Step Method. They comprise a precursor design assessment followed by a risk reduction
exercise that applies the principles of the Ten Step method in a less rigorous manner.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Revised requirements affecting changes to the role and/or deployment of materiel may impose
a high risk, or even a reasonable certainty, that the original design will prove to be inadequate.
For example, to accommodate the associated more extreme environmental conditions it may be
necessary for the design to include thermal insulation or shock isolators. In such cases it is
important that the design activities associated with any necessary hardware modifications are
completed before proceeding to the Ten Step Method. Otherwise, substantial time could be lost
following a process that proves the concept unfeasible and where the subsequent steps cannot
be completed.
3 LIMITATIONS
3.1 As stated in AECTP 600, a significant assumption is that the principles of STANAG 4370 have
been adopted for the original environmental qualification of the design and life assessment of
the materiel; for example it would be expected that a full Life Cycle Environmental Profile
(LCEP) exists for the materiel. If this is not the case, then it will be necessary to 'reverse
engineer' the environmental conditions from test data into an 'equivalent' LCEP, as indicated in
Leaflet 601 of this Annex. However, it should be possible to apply the measures presented in
this leaflet to any materiel, provided that the original information can be configured to align with
the Ten Step Method process.
4 MEASURES
4.1 The measures are indicated in Table 1 as a precursor design assessment, followed by a risk
reduction exercise prior to proceeding with the full Ten Step Method. Columns A, B and C of
Table 1 detail the precursor design assessment that establishes the feasibility of the materiel to
accommodate the role and/or deployment change requirements. This assessment should
conclude with a statement, presented at an appropriate first design review, regarding whether
the feasibility of the concept is established or otherwise. If feasibility is established, the
assessment should also provide an estimate of the scope of any possible design changes.
4.2 It should also be ascertained at the first design review where clarification is required on specific
issues and where risks need to be reduced. For example, the demonstration of compliance for
certain elements of the original design might have been marginal and/or the technical reporting
not particularly coherent.
4.3 As part of the risk reduction exercise (see Table 1 Columns D and E) it is possible that further
analysis and/or limited testing might be required to support any proposed design modifications.
Any risks should be resolved before a second design review where a recommendation could be
made to proceed with the manufacture of the development hardware.
D-58
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 607
4.4 Given the authorisation to proceed from the second design review, the full process for the Ten
Step Method can be initiated, as detailed in the main text of this AECTP (and as indicated in
Table 1 Column F). The output from Step 10 of the Ten Step Method forms a major input into
the third design review, which will consider whether or not it is acceptable to proceed with
production (see Table 1 Column G).
D-59
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 607
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF MEASURES TO ACCOMMODATE MATERIEL ROLE AND DEPLOYMENT CHANGES

PRECURSOR DESIGN ASSESSMENT RISK REDUCTION EXERCISE FULL TEN STEP METHOD
A B C D E F G
Conduct baseline Acquire evidence for design Conduct first design Analyse the outstanding Conduct second design Initiate Full Ten Step Conduct a third
investigations adequacy review risks review Method design review
• Ensure that the LCEP for • Determine significant adverse • This task may reduce to • This review will need to • Conduct full Ten • This review will
the role/ deployment change is deltas (simplified AECTP 600 • The aim of this review resolving only the design make the recommendation Step Method to need to make the
defined sufficiently for this Step 4). is to establish the uncertainties noted in on whether to proceed with demonstrate recommendation
precursor design assessment. feasibility of the materiel Option 1b of Column B. design modifications/ stress compliance. (See on whether it is
• Use existing critical cases and accommodating the mitigation measures/stress Figure 1 of the Ten acceptable to
• Investigate original LCEP potential design weaknesses proposed role changes. • Undertake design alleviation waivers, and to Step Method.) proceed to full
and associated analysis and (partial AECTP 600 Step 5) to analyses and design commit to the manufacture production.
test reports to identify the derive 'definite' and 'probable' • This review will need support testing as relevant. of associated development • The output from
design driving environments critical cases (simplified AECTP to make the Include FMECA where hardware. Step 10 of the Ten
(simplified AECTP 600 Step 600 Step 6). recommendation on appropriate (simplified Step Method will
1). whether or not the AECTP 600 Steps 7, 8 and Output options: form a major input to
Output options: concept is feasible 9). the third design
• Check subsequent life (ie: whether or not to 1. Requires design review (see Column
history, design modifications 1a. 'Definite' critical cases would modifications and/or stress
require design modifications proceed) based on an G).
and testing for design evaluation of the outputs mitigation measures and/or
weaknesses (simplified (and/or stress mitigation stress alleviation waivers.
measures and/or stress from Columns A and B.
AECTP 600 Step 2).
alleviation waivers). 2. Considered acceptable
• Investigate test reports and to enter the full AECTP 600
1b. 'Probable' critical cases may Ten Step Method.
strength summaries to
require design modifications
establish original design
(and/or stress mitigation 3. Considered acceptable
margins and critical cases
measures and/or stress without further work.
(partial AECTP 600 Steps 5
alleviation waivers). (Output is a simplified
and 6).
AECTP 600 Step 10.)
2. Very unlikely that design
• Compile provisional LCEP
modifications are required and
to identify environmental
therefore the full AECTP 600 Ten
conditions that might
Step Method can be conducted
exacerbate the original design
without undue risk.
driver conditions and design
margins (simplified AECTP
600 Step 3). 3. Materiel is considered
acceptable without further work.
D-60 21/09/2007
AECTP 600
Edition 2
ANNEX D Leaflet 607
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
D-61

Aectp 600 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aectp 600 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.

ALLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TEST PUBLICATION

THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

NATO STANDARDISATION AGENCY (NSA)

NATO LETTER OF PROMULGATION

1. AECTP-600 (Edition 2) – THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE

2. AECTP-600 (Edition 2) is effective upon receipt. It supersedes AECTP-600

4. It is permissible to reproduce this AECTP in whole or in part provided the same

ALLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TEST PUBLICATION

2. As a management tool, the Ten Step Method provides:

• a structured economical process to aid conformity and traceability when evaluating

5. In short, the benefits of adopting the Ten Step Method are:

THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE ABILITY OF MATERIEL

1.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................1

3 INTRODUCTION TO THE METHOD.........................................................................................................2

4 PROVISIONS AND BENEFITS .................................................................................................................7

5 THE TEN STEPS.......................................................................................................................................8

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS .....................................................................................................................13

ANNEX A: A DEMONSTRATION OF THE TEN STEP METHOD ............................................................. A-1

ANNEX B: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND

ANNEX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................... C-1

ANNEX D: GUIDANCE FOR THE ENGINEERING PRACTITIONER ........................................................ D-1

THE TEN STEP METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE ABILITY OF MATERIEL

601 Reverse Engineering

- STANAG 4370 Environmental Testing

- Mil-Std-810 Test Method Standard for Environmental Engineering

3 INTRODUCTION TO THE METHOD

Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes.

Figure 1: Inter-Relationship between the Ten Steps

Step Action Input information Output information

1. Research the original Platform(s) used LCEP-1 or synthesised

Figure 2: Inputs and Outputs for Each of the Ten Steps

Materiel: For example, air carried guided missile

Set of Relevant materiel sub-assemblies and components

Key: X indicates a possible condition exists (see Paragraph 5.5.1)

Note: A separate matrix is required to evaluate each adverse delta.

4 PROVISIONS AND BENEFITS

4.1 As a management tool, the Ten Step Method provides:

• a structured economical process to aid conformity and traceability when evaluating

5 THE TEN STEPS

5.1 Step 1: Research the original Life Cycle Environmental Profile

• Handling, transportation and storage

• Environmental Design Criteria

A method to deduce the original LCEP environmental conditions by 'reverse engineering' is

5.2 Step 2: Research life history and prepare LCEP

5.3 Step 3: Prepare an LCEP for the extended life requirement

5.4 Step 4: Compare LCEPs

5.4.3 Recommended practices should be followed where time compression, or perhaps

5.5 Step 5: Evaluate adverse deltas to determine potentially critical cases

Matrices should be produced as necessary to accommodate all three categories. Determining

• Materiel performance specifications to ascertain mission critical and minimum

• Project hazard analyses to ascertain the consequences of failure(s) resulting in a

5.7.1 At this point:

• Sophisticated analysis/modelling and/or evaluation without testing, eg: finite element

5.8 Step 8: Select options and compile work programme

• Determine which environmental stresses can be combined. Advice is given in AECTP

5.9 Step 9: Undertake the planned tasks

A DEMONSTRATION OF THE TEN STEP METHOD

• Adverse deltas (Steps 1-4)

3.2 Evaluate adverse deltas to determine potentially critical cases (Step 5)

• System performance: functional and reliability

• Fracture mechanics methods